T

he Constitutional Court (MK) dashed on Wednesday the hopes of those attempting to halt the controversial House of Representatives’ inquiry that aims to undermine the power of the country’s anti-graft body, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Anwar Usman, the MK justice presiding over a judicial review petition that sought to annul the House inquiry team, opened Wednesday’s hearing by explaining that the bench had rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a provisional ruling to suspend the House inquiry into the KPK’s performance.

The rejection was made more than a month after the plaintiffs, including the KPK’s worker’s union and anticorruption activists, lodged the provisional ruling request on Aug. 2 to suspend the inquiry team from carrying out activities until the court decided on a final ruling on the judicial review case.

“The hearing will now be continued [without any provisional matters],” Anwar said on Wednesday.

In the decision made by vote on Sept. 6, the court split into two camps, with four justices, I Dewa Gede Palguna, Suhartoyo, Manahan Sitompul and Maria Farida Indrati, agreeing to accept the arguments of the plaintiffs and four other justices, including Anwar himself, Aswanto, Wahiduddin Adams and Arief Hidayat, deciding to reject the request.

The “final vote” made by Arief, as the chief justice, determined the result of the vote, which was carried out in the absence of justice Saldi, a justice deemed to be a progressive who, at that time, was on the haj. Saldi was appointed as MK justice in April to replace Patrialis Akbar, who was dismissed after being arrested on bribery charges. Patrialis was the second justice to be prosecuted by the KPK after former chief justice Akil Mochtar.

The four-and-four formation of justices who agreed and rejected the request hindered the voting process.

“The final vote from the chief justice determined the decision as cited in the 2003 MK Law. Therefore, we rejected the request,” Anwar said.

Under the law, the court can reach a decision with a minimum of seven justices. And, if a decision is not reached, the vote of the chief justice determines the final count.

The decision appeared to have favored the House, which had requested that the justices reject the plaintiffs’ request.

The House’s argument was presented by United Development Party (PPP) lawmaker Arsul Sani during a previous hearing on Sept. 5, a day before the MK vote.

The rejection also means the judicial review case could go for months or even years as the court has no deadline for deliberating rulings on such cases, while the House’s inquiry team is set to deliver their decision on the KPK’s fate by the end of this month.

Such a provisional decision in a judicial review hearing is not common, unlike in various election dispute cases the court has handled in the past.

But, in 2009, the court was praised for issuing a provisional ruling in favor of plaintiffs Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra Hamzah, two beleaguered KPK leaders who, at that time, were named suspects of power abuse by the police.

The court ordered the two to continue in office until they were brought to court, in a provisional decision made only three days after Bibit and Chandra filed the provisional request. At that time, Bibit and Chandra were plaintiffs in a judicial review that sought to prevent them from leaving office until they faced a criminal court.

Erwin Natosmal Oemar of the Indonesian Legal Roundtable (ILR) said the request for a provisional decision had been a reasonable call made by the plaintiffs to support the KPK, particularly in what he deemed to be an urgent situation.

“In desperate times amid the House inquiry, the MK should have granted the interlocutor, instead, ” he told The Jakarta Post.

On Wednesday, Anwar, however, did not read out the consideration of each justice’s vote.

Three of the four justices who agreed to grant the request — Maria, Palguna and Suhartoyo — were the same justices who dissented to another controversial MK decision that undermined the country’s war against corruption in January.

MK spokesman Fajar Laksono dismissed critics, saying “They [the plaintiffs] wanted an immediate decision. We made it promptly, but now we face criticism.”