T

he controversial initiative of House of Representatives lawmakers to revise Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) ended in anticlimax on Monday. In a joint press conference with House leaders following a consultative meeting, President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo announced that the revision was indefinitely shelved.

Public outcry over the proposed amendment could be a reason behind the decision. This is the third failed attempt of the House to curtail the KPK through legislation within four years, and the second under the Jokowi administration alone.

In February last year, the House listed the KPK Law amendment as a priority in the 2015 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). The public challenged the plan before Jokowi made public his stance '€” that his newly installed government had no intention to undermine the work of the antigraft body. In October 2015, Jokowi and the House leaders formally dropped the bill from the agenda.

The latest move was launched in January, with the House legislation body (Baleg) including the revision among 40 priority bills for deliberation this year.

Neither Jokowi and the House leaders have set a definite timeframe for the amendment'€™s postponement. But given the fact that the revision remains in the Prolegnas, the agenda could materialize anyway.

Public resistance to the House initiative centers on the perceived motives behind the lawmakers'€™ continuing efforts to revise the law. Despite their political rhetoric, the public deems the plan part of the politicians'€™ efforts to incapacitate the antigraft body, which has arrested dozens of lawmakers since its inception in 2003.

The prolonged controversy over the KPK law amendment has in fact revealed a fundamental issue: the absence of a national consensus over the long-term direction of national antigraft policy.

The current debate on the revision has only focused on technical issues, such as KPK oversight and KPK authority to wiretap, halt investigations and recruit independent investigators.

To gear the debate over the revision toward empowering the KPK, two questions should be addressed. First, in combating rampant corruption in Indonesia, should we denote the KPK as an ad hoc institution serving for a specific period of time, or a permanent institution? When the government and the House set up the KPK in 2003, what they had in mind was a temporary institution, but without a clear time frame.

That is one of the reasons why the KPK only operates at the national level, with no branches atthe local level,unlike the Attorney General'€™s Office (AGO) and the National Police.

But considering the fight against corruption is '€œa war with no end'€, is the temporary nature of the KPK relevant?

Second, in our long battle against corruption, which strategy is better: having one strong institution focusing on corruption (KPK) or several institutions (KPK, AGO and the police) that share the same responsibilities and authority to deal with corruption?

If the government and lawmakers intend to revise the KPK law and the public actively participates in the debate, these two issues should be taken into account. Different strategic direction will result in different strategic consequences.

First, if we opt to design the KPK as an ad hoc body, then the government has to establish a clear agenda on how to reform the AGO and the National Police to become credible and reliable antigraft institutions.

Since the Reform Era began in 1998, internal reforms within the two graft-tainted law enforcement agencies have been half-hearted, if not ineffective.

Second, if we decide to design the KPK as a permanent institution with the sole authority to tackle corruption, then the AGO and National Police'€™s authority to investigate corruption should be scrapped. Indonesia will then have a sole credible institution with full authority and responsibility to fight graft.

As a consequence, certain regulations need to be revised. To strengthen its legal basis, the KPK'€™s existence should be explicitly stipulated in the Constitution '€” this will require a constitutional amendment. The government then has to set up KPK offices nationwide. The commission should also be allowed to recruit investigators, rather than hiring them from the National Police and AGO.

Now that the KPK law revision is off the table, the momentis right for a thorough evaluation of the state of corruption eradication in Indonesia and to redesign a well-equipped antigraft body. The revision debate should be put into this context, which aims for an empowered KPK.

More than an endless polemic, we need a productive debate and discussion. If realized, this could be a credit to and legacy of Jokowi'€™s presidency.
___________________________________

The writer heads The Jakarta Post'€™s research and information center.