The court held that increasing the tenure stipulated in the 2019 KPK Law was necessary “to protect the independence of the KPK” and decided to allow former KPK leaders to be reelected without having to be aged at least 50.

“Having the KPK leadership tenure be different from those of [5-year tenure] leaderships of other independent state institutions or commissions has violated the principle of justice [...] and this is a discriminatory practice,” justice Guntur Hamzah read out the ruling.

The court ruled in favor of petitioner Nurul Ghufron, a 48-year-old KPK deputy chairman who will be ending his first tenure in December. Ghufron argued that the four-year tenure in the prevailing KPK law was discriminatory and that he lost his chance to contest the post for the second time because of the required minimum age of 50.

The ruling, however, did not specifically mention whether it is applicable to the current five KPK leaders who will end their tenure on Dec. 20 this year, including the petitioner and controversial KPK chairman Firli Bahuri.

Critics were quick to comment that the ruling could not be immediately enforced on sitting KPK leaders, with law expert Feri Amsari saying it is “not retroactive”.

Read also: Activists call for removal of KPK chief over mounting controversies

Meanwhile, lawmaker Benny Kabur Harman of the Democratic Party said on Twitter that the Constitutional Court had no authority over extending the term of a KPK leader. “[Extending the term] falls only under the jurisdiction of lawmakers. This goes to show that constitutional order [in Indonesia] is now in disarray as a result of the Constitutional Court involving themself in politics,” he said.

But Ghufron and fellow KPK deputy chairman Johanis Tanak said the ruling might mean that the sitting KPK leaders stay in office beyond December.

KPK controversies

Leadership of the KPK, particularly since Firli took charge in 2019, has been marred with controversies, from the widely criticized civic knowledge test that resulted in the ousting of dozens of KPK workers, including seasoned KPK investigator Novel Baswedan, to an ethics breach committed by Firli for displaying a "hedonistic lifestyle".

Firli was declared guilty of ethics violations in September 2020, while deputy chair Lili Pintauli Siregar abruptly stepped down from her post last year after she was reported for allegedly receiving gratuities. She was replaced by Johanis, who is filling the post until December of this year.

Read also: Explainer: How the KPK is losing public trust

More recently, activists and former KPK leaders have called for Firli’s removal after his controversial dismissal of Endar Priatoro, a police brigadier general previously stationed as the KPK’s investigations director, and Firli’s alleged leaking of official documents to the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, which at the time was the subject of a KPK probe.

The 2019 revision to the KPK law itself is widely seen as an attempt to declaw the KPK by introducing some problematic provisions, including those that required the KPK to obtain a wiretapping warrant from the supervisory council and to drop cases whose investigations were not completed within a year. The amendment was enacted in 2019 without transparent deliberation, eliciting protests from activists and students.

Justices dissented

The vote on Thursday was 5 to 4, with two president appointees, newly elected deputy chief justice Saldi Isra and justice Enny Nurbaningsih, joining two other justices in dissent.

Enny said the petitioner failed to present convincing arguments to show that the KPK leadership tenure corresponded to the independence of the institution, while he focused too much on the violation of his rights to be reelected.

"In fact, the provisions in question already guaranteed the rights of those who are selected to be KPK leaders, that they were provided certainty of having a four-year tenure and can be reelected."

Read also: Anwar Usman reelected as chief justice of Constitutional Court

The dissented four justices were also concerned that granting the petition could trigger similar petitions challenging leadership tenures of other state institutions that would eventually force the court to deal with a matter that is under the authority of policymakers.

The House of Representatives and the government have opposed the petition, in their arguments presented before the court as policymakers. (ipa/jan/dds)