Twilight of Corruption Whistleblowers
Over the past decade, the intensity and quality of counterattacks against those who disclose corruption have become increasingly systematic.
.
The results of Transparency International Indonesia’s 2017 survey indicate that over the past decade, the intensity and quality of counterattacks against those who disclose corruption have become increasingly systematic.
The public, which has a key role in eradicating corruption, either in their position as informants, witnesses or academics, face frequent threats, mistreatment and murder, as well as counterattacks that use the legal mechanism of criminal reports. These include defamation, humiliation or through legal cases that are reproduced in such a way.
This fact indirectly shows that public involvement in corruption eradication is at its lowest level. In reality, many cases of corruption are uncovered by law enforcement – especially the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) – based on information and complaints provided by the public.
On the other hand, the pattern of threats and attacks has seemingly been directed against the law enforcers themselves, especially the KPK. Many KPK leaders, investigators, prosecutors and officers have been criminalized, shot at, demoted and threatened, even dosed with liquid acid.
Public protection
These acts of retaliation in all possible forms affirm the impact of corruption as an organized crime. In certain cases that carry high political, social, economic and legal risks, it has been ascertained that retaliation has also become increasingly open.
Basically, the public protection system covers the public’s provision of information and reporting corruption cases, and includes legal protection.
This is what has inspired the establishment of the state’s protection system for members of the public that have been involved in corruption eradication. Law No. 31/1999, in conjunction with Law No. 20/2001 on Corruption Eradication (Corruption Law), regulates the public’s role in anti-corruption and law enforcement’s duty to protect the public under such circumstances (Article 41 and Article 42). Basically, the public protection system covers the public’s provision of information and reporting corruption cases, and includes legal protection.
In 2016, a new regulation and institution were established specifically to offer protection to informants, witnesses, victims and other innocent parties of a crime, including corruption. Law No. 13/2006 and Law No. 31/2014 founded the Witness and Victim Protection Institution (LPSK), which is responsible for providing protection. The laws even stipulate strong measures against transnational and organized crime.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the public protection system is adequately regulated in terms of legislation. Meanwhile, various institutions have been tasked with protecting citizens that are involved in anti-corruption.
Therefore, if the Corruption Law is used as the basis, all law enforcement institutions investigating corruption – the KPK, the police, the prosecutors’ office and court judges – are obliged to provide protection in line with their respective authorities. This is reinforced with the role of the LPSK as a partner to all law enforcement in providing public protection.
Inconsistency
Then, we must as to why the threats, attacks and other acts of retaliation continue against those involved in eradicating corruption.
Law enforcers – especially the KPK – have also experienced retaliation, in the form of both counter-suits and crimes that target them, such as abuse, murder and other threats.
Several cases exist in which retaliation against informants/witnesses of corruption have occurred in the form of counter-suits that have been legally processed through to a court decision. Actually, there is a legal clause that an individual cannot be prosecuted legally, neither at the criminal nor civil courts, over any testimonies and/or reports they are giving, have provided or will provide, excepting those testimonies or reports that are provided with an intent to harm.
A lawsuit against informants in such cases must be postponed until the reported corruption case, in which the informant provides testimony, undergoes a court trial and is issued a binding legal decision (Article 10, Law No. 31/2014). In contrast, counter-suits have been processed by law enforcers (investigators, prosecutors, judges), even when the reported corruption cases have not been fully settled.
It does not stop there, as certain parties have filed counter-suits as a means to take an individual’s legal status “hostage”. This has happened in the case of several anticorruption, environmental and human rights activists, who were named suspects in a counter-suit. Therefore, there is an impression that law enforcers have become a tool to spread fear and intimidation against those citizens actively involved in eradicating corruption.
Moreover, law enforcers – especially the KPK – have also experienced retaliation, in the form of both counter-suits and crimes that target them, such as abuse, murder and other threats. It is not impossible that such retaliatory measures have affect other law enforcement members that are handling corruption cases, such as police officers, prosecutors, and judges.
Recommendation
Several things must be done to resolve the problem. First, the KPK, the police, prosecutors, judges and the LPSK need to establish an agreement and standardize the mechanisms and criteria for protecting members of the public from criminal acts or legal retaliation waged against them in connection with their anticorruption activities. The agreement and standards must be enforced in binding, operational regulations within these institutions. This is to ensure that the agreement among these institutions will not end merely as an MoU or an informal agreements but are followed through with technical regulations that must be complied with to the lowest level at each institution.
Improving the internal protection system at institutions in accordance with the relevant laws will have a direct impact on public protection for those involved in the fight against corruption.
Second, for the short-term, counter-suits that criminalize informants must be stopped immediately and civil cases involving the maltreatment of citizens and law enforcers must be settled as soon as possible.
Third, the KPK, the police, prosecutors, judges and the LPSK need to formulate preventive measures to protect investigators, litigants, judges and other personnel involved in managing corruption cases and public protection.
Improving the internal protection system at institutions in accordance with the relevant laws will have a direct impact on public protection for those involved in the fight against corruption.
Reza Syawawi
Law and Policy Researcher at Transparency International Indonesia
