TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Expert witnesses back revision of KPK Law
Expert witnesses testified at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday that articles 45 and 46 of Law No
Change Size
E
xpert witnesses testified at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday that articles 45 and 46 of Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) needed amending, as they could easily lead to an abuse of power by the antigraft body in their current iteration.
Article 45 authorizes the KPK to appoint independent investigators, while Article 46 orders the antigraft body to conduct uninterrupted investigations and to guarantee the rights of suspects in investigations.
During Tuesday's hearing on a judicial review filed by prominent lawyer and graft suspect OC Kaligis, a legal expert from Bandung-based Padjadjaran University, I Gde Pantja Astawa, argued that the KPK had its own interpretation of the word 'independent' in Article 45.
He cited Article 30 of the same law, which stipulates that KPK investigators must come from the National Police and its prosecutors must be from the Attorney General's Office (AGO), but these officials have to be suspended from their position in their respective institutions until their terms at the KPK expired.
'The term 'independent' doesn't mean that the KPK can appoint investigators from other institutions. If the KPK does so, its investigations will be illegitimate,' Pantja said.
He added that the word 'independent' referred to the authority of the investigation, not the status of its investigators.
Regarding Article 46, legal expert Romli Atmasasmita testified that the KPK often abused the basic rights of graft suspects by basing their actions on the stipulation that a graft probe should not be interrupted.
Romli also lamented that the article did not specify what constitutes abuse of rights.
'The KPK has a very powerful authority in the country, but it also has to uphold human rights, so there are limitations to what it should do,' Romli said.
OC Kaligis filed for the judicial review in September, following his detention in July by the antigraft body in a bribery case involving three judges in Medan, North Sumatra.
Kaligis' lawyer Muhammad Ruliandi said the two articles were flawed and an aberration of the country's legal system.
Since Article 45 did not clearly define the criteria for KPK investigators, it was possible that investigators dealing with his client's case were illegitimate, he said, citing Article 30 that requires links to the National Police and AGO.
He also demanded the Constitutional Court review Article 46, which he claimed did not guarantee the protection of suspects' rights. He said the KPK had rejected his client's request for temporary release.
In a previous hearing, the Law and Human Rights Ministry's litigation director, Nasrudin, testified that all investigators handling Kaligis' case were legitimate.
He said that 'independent investigators' meant that they were employed by the KPK, which had the authority to appoint its own investigators rather than borrow from other institutions.
KPK legal division head Setiadi testified that Kaligis had never requested temporary release.
He said this meant Kaligis never experienced any injury to his basic rights.
Setiadi added that Criminal Code Procedures (KUHAP) stipulated that a detention was mandatory in the public interest in cases of murder, drug crimes and graft. (foy)
