Representatives from the Corruption Eradication Awareness Society, Natalia Soebagjo (right), Betti Alisjahbana (left) and Zainal Arifin Mochtar attend a press conference at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) headquarters in Jakarta on Friday (21/4/2017). They urged the House of Representatives not to intervene with the KPK’s investigative process by launching a right to inquiry against the anti-graft body, and encouraged the National Police to thoroughly investigate a recent acid attack on Novel Baswedan.
No one is rejecting it, as the inquiry right is the right of the House of Representatives. However, using the right of inquiry to force the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) disclose a legal document is not right.
The House’s move in attempting to force the KPK to disclose the recording of an investigation by KPK investigators on House member Miryam Haryani does not have any legal basis. The public can see it is only an attempt by the House to obstruct the thorough uncovering of the electronic ID case by the KPK.
A number of House members were annoyed when KPK leaders refused to disclose the recording of Miryam’s investigation. As a witness, Miryam, who is a Hanura Party legislator, revoked her statements in her examination report (BAP), claiming that she had been threatened into making them. However, Miryam’s claim was refuted by KPK investigator Novel Baswedan. Answering a question by the panel of judges, Novel said that Miryam had been warned by a number of House members not to reveal the truth. Novel also called out the names of those House members.
Novel’s answer is the reason for the proposed use of the right of inquiry by the House Legal Commission. Members of Commission III overseeing Law and Legislation, Human Rights and Security Affairs want to know whether Miryam did mention the names of House members or whether it is the KPK who is lying.
Can the House force the KPK to disclose the recording through the mechanism of inquiry? We are of the opinion that the mechanism of inquiry cannot be used. Legally, it is more correct to use an inquiry to examine a government policy that is in breach of the law and is strategic in nature. A criminal case examination at the KPK is not something that can be explored using the right of inquiry.
The Freedom of Information Law regulates what information can and cannot be disclosed. In Article 17, it is stipulated that public information related to law enforcement and those that can inhibit the process of investigation are the exceptions. Therefore, the Freedom of Information Law stresses that the recording of the investigation of a witness or a suspect is considered an exception. As makers of the law, House of Representatives members should know this.
From a political point of view, the House’s move of forcing the use of the right of inquiry is clearly against the will of the people. According to this newspaper, the move is an act of political suicide by the House.
We suggest that House members use legal steps when dealing with the KPK. A proposal for a pretrial hearing is one possible way. Whether the proposal will be granted is another matter. Or House members could also build an argument to take the matter to the Constitutional Court, as what happened in 2009, when then Constitutional Court justice Mahfud MD disclosed the recording of a taped conversation between Anggodo Widjojo and a number of law enforcers in Indonesia.
