The chairman of the Inquiry Committee into the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Agun Gunanjar (left), accompanied by deputy chairmen of the committee Taufiqulhadi (second left) and Masinton Pasaribu (third left), poses for a photograph with former Permai Group finance director Yulianis (right), before a hearing in Senayan, Jakarta, Monday (24/7).
The withdrawal of the Gerindra faction from the House of Representatives Inquiry Committee into the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) at least shows that there is a “problem" in the committee.
The Gerindra faction announced its withdrawal from the inquiry committee through a letter signed by Gerindra faction chairman Ahmad Muzani and secretary Fary Djemi Francis. After being on the inquiry committee, Gerindra saw that the committee’s direction was to weaken the KPK. Gerindra had initially rejected the inquiry committee, but later sent its member to the committee and then quitting it. "Up to this point, we saw it was weakening the KPK, all the more in asking for information from corruption convicts," said Desmond J Mahesa, Gerindra deputy chairman (Kompas, 25/7).
Conversely, vice chairman Taufiqulhadi of the Inquiry Committee into the KPK, from the NasDem faction,said that the withdrawal of Gerindra would not stop the work of the committee. Its work would go ahead even if the committee consisted of only one faction.
The use of the right to inquiry is the constitutional right of the House. No one denies this. A formal decision was taken through a House plenary session, even though its legitimacy can be questioned. In reality however, the inquiry committee, whose existence can be disputed from several angles upon legal, political and representational theories, will be continued by factions, even those that are part of the coalition government of President Joko Widodo. This is a bit surprising and raises questions.
In accordance with the law, the inquiry committee has to submit the results of its work within 60 days to a House plenary session. It will be up to the plenary session whether to accept or reject them. Let the people keep an eye on the actions of the House members and political parties that intend to undermine the KPK.
However, as to the institution of the KPK and whether it can be an object of inquiry, the Constitutional Court\'s 2006 verdict can be a guide. In its decision No. 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006 versus applicant Mulyana W Kusumah, the Constitutional Court stated that "the KPK is formed in the framework to create a just and prosperous society based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. The KPK can be considered constitutionally important."
The Constitutional Court gives a reason for the importance of the KPK’s independence. The importance of the KPK’s independence and its freedom from any power of government in carrying out its duties and tasks has been emphasized so that there will be no hindrance for KPK officials to act.
The independence and freedom of the KPK are needed because, according the Constitutional Court, the parties most likely to be investigated, questioned or prosecuted by the KPK for corruption are law enforcers or state institutions. That was the opinion of the Constitutional Court in 2006 on the independence of the KPK.
