Vice chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Alexander Marwata (second right) answers questions from students in a discussion entitled "Tracing the Role and Performance of the House of Representatives (DPR) in Combating Corruption" at Airlangga University’s School of Law in Surabaya, East Java, on Tuesday (4/4). The discussion was held amid the DPR\'s efforts to weaken the KPK by reintroducing the revision of a law on the anti-graft body, which uses the right of inquiry against the KPK in investigating the e-ID case.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS – Political parties in the House of Representatives that support a proposal for an inquiry against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) could be digging their own graves. Amid the enormous public support for the KPK, the proposal for a right to inquire will be detrimental to political parties.
“Political parties in the House that support the right of inquiry will suffer, because the public will see that they are putting their body on the line to protect corruptors,” Indonesian Institute of Sciences political researcher Syamsuddin Haris said in Jakarta on Wednesday (26/4).
This public perception can determine the fate of political parties, because corruption eradication is an issue that will earn the public’s sympathy in the general and regional elections, particularly considering that the early stages of the 2019 general elections will start in August and preparations for the 2018 simultaneous regional elections will begin in September.
The House of Representatives, said Driyakara School of Philosophy lecturer Franz Magnis-Suseno, should be united with the people in supporting the work of the KPK, rather than hinder the commission’s work through the attempt to launch an inquiry.
The proposal for a right of inquiry against the KPK will be read out at a House plenary meeting in Jakarta on Thursday (27/4).
The proposal comes on the heels of the e-ID corruption case hearing at the Jakarta Anticorruption Court on March 31, 2017, in which a KPK investigator had said that a House member of the Hanura Party faction, Miryam S Haryani, had testified that she had been put under pressure by House Commission III members Bambang Soesatyo, Aziz Syamsuddin, Desmond J Mahesa, Masinton Pasaribu and Sarifuddin Sudding.
However, based on the letter of the proposal sent to House speakers, the right of inquiry will not only focus on the examination of the report of Miryam, who has since been named a suspect in the e-ID case that implicates several Commission III members, but will also highlight aspects related to the KPK’s performance and authority.
One of the things to be brought up in the inquiry is the result of a compliance check on the KPK in 2015 carried out by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), which recorded seven indications of noncompliance by the KPK. Also set to be brought up by the House is the suspected leak of legal documents, such as an examination report (BAP) and an investigation warrant, as well as reports of disharmony between KPK leaders and groups of investigators within the KPK.
House Deputy Speaker and Gerindra Party member Fadli Zon said there was a possibility that today’s plenary meeting would also respond to the right of inquiry proposal initiated by Commission III. “The proposal is there, we just need to see how the factions respond. We will see in the plenary meeting; what is important is that the proposal is read out first,” he said.
Commission III chairman and Golkar party member Bambang Soesatyo said that, as of Wednesday afternoon, all factions at the House have agreed to support the right of inquiry against the KPK. The number of House members pledging their support for the proposal has exceeded the required minimum stipulated in Law No. 17/2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), also known as MD3, which states that a proposal for an inquiry must be supported by a minimum of 25 legislators from two different factions. He said all factions had agreed to support the inquiry.
“According to the information I received, all (factions) support it. However, to be sure, we will wait for the plenary meeting,” he said.
Doubts and rejection
Of the 10 factions in the House, the Gerindra party faction is the only one to reject the proposal for the right of inquiry. Four other factions, namely those of the PDI-P, the Democratic Party, the National Mandate Party (PAN) and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), have not yet decided their official position on the matter.
However, Commission III deputy speaker from the Gerindra faction, Desmond J Mahesa, has previously fought for the right of inquiry against the KPK. Gerindra faction secretary Farry Djemi Francis said the proposal of the Commission III members was different from the official stance of their respective factions. “There is no need for a right of inquiry. Commission III summoning the KPK for an explanation would suffice,” he said.
Commission III member Masinton Pasaribu from the PDI-P faction has also been active in supporting the right of inquiry against the KPK. However, PDI-P faction treasurer Alex Indra Lukman said the faction was not yet able to declare any official position, because it was still waiting to find out the details on the proposed right of inquiry.
PAN faction chairman Mulfachri Harahap said his faction, too, was still studying whether or not to support an inquiry. Meanwhile, PKS majelis syura (religious council) member Soenmandjaja said he and PKS faction Commission III members had not yet met with faction leaders and the PKS president to decide on an official faction position.
Not right
Parahyangan Catholic University Constitutional Law professor Asep Warlan Yusuf said it was not right to direct the right of inquiry at the KPK, because the conditions outlined in the MD3 Law were not met.
One of the conditions for a right of inquiry to be used, according to Article 79 (3) of the MD3 Law, Asep added, was in the case of a government policy that was suspected to be in breach of the law. This condition is not met, because the KPK has not breached any laws in its investigation of the e-ID project corruption case, which names Miryam as a suspect. “It must also be understood that in the e-ID case, the KPK is not carrying out any governmental function, but is performing its task as a law enforcer,” he said.
The MD3 law does not stipulate that law enforcement is one of the factors that can be used by the House as a political institution to use the right of inquiry. Law enforcement efforts are regulated by laws that regulate law enforcement itself, such as the KPK Law, the Prosecutor Law and the Police Law or the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP).
University of Indonesia criminal law lecturer Chudry Sitompul said the KPK Law and the KUHAP guaranteed that the KPK was able to keep the results of its investigation secret until a case is brought to court. “The results of investigations by law enforcers cannot be disclosed with the right of inquiry,” he said.
KPK spokesperson Febri Diansyah said that the KPK would continue to reject the House’s demand for the recording of Miryam’s investigation to be disclosed. He asked all parties to observe the facts presented in the e-ID corruption case hearing.
