DPR Threat to KPK

A strategy frequently used to defend oneself is to make a preemptive attack to paralyze the opponent.

Such an illustration is fairly accurate in describing how the House of Representatives (DPR) tries to hamper the work of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in uncovering the involvement of DPR members in the procurement of electronic ID (e-ID) cards. A number of members of Commission III of the DPR mumbled against the stance of the KPK leadership, which refused to submit a recording of the questioning by KPK investigators of DPR member Miryam Haryani. When she testified at a Corruption Court hearing, Miryam withdrew all her statements from the investigation record as she felt threatened by KPK investigators. The Commission III members then threatened to use their right of inquiry.

Miryam\'s explanation was denied by KPK investigator Novel Baswedan. In his testimony, Novel said that during the interrogation, Miriam admitted to have been pressured by members of Commission III of the DPR to not admit there was a distribution of money. The members alleged to have done so were Bambang Soesatyo, Aziz Syamsudin, Desmond J. Mahesa, Masinton Pasaribu and Sarifuddin Sudding (Kompas, 31/3). Several days later, Novel was assaulted with acid liquid. Before launching the right of inquiry, the Consultative Board (Bamus) of the DPR threatened to protest to President Joko Widodo, asking him to annul the overseas travel ban on DPR speaker Setya Novanto.

The DPR maneuver to exercise its right of inquiry can be read as an effort to defend itself and pressure the KPK not to investigate DPR politicians who might have received funds from the e-ID card procurement. In the indictment in the mega corruption case, a number of DPR members were said to have received funds tied to the e-ID procurement.

The use of the right of inquiry could be an effort by the DPR to obstruct the eradication of corruption and hamper the quest for justice. The right of inquiry is the right of the DPR. The right of inquiry is the right of the House to investigate the implementation of law or government policies, which is related to something that is important, strategic and having a broad impact on the life of the community, nation and state, which allegedly stands contrary to the law.

The KPK’s refusal to submit the recording of the witness examination is in the framework of law and thus cannot be used by the DPR as a condition to file a right of inquiry. If the DPR politicians intend to force the KPK to hand over the investigation recording, the DPR should turn to legal channels, such as the court or the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court once opened a recording of Anggodo Widjojo\'s interview with a number of high ranking officials of law. The recording was even made public to show the people how the “legal mafia” worked.