KPK, Keep Working!

KOMPAS/ALIF ICHWAN

Golkar Party youth members, grouped under Generasi Muda Golkar, stage a rally outside the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) building in Jakarta. They brought banners and posters to give full support to the antigraft body.

The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is part of the executive branch of government and thus could become an object of a House of Representatives (DPR) inquiry.

The MK ruling must be respected, even though a number of constitutional law experts are of the view that it has the potential to contradict other MK rulings. The MK ruling is also based on the theory of classical power sharing between the executive, judiciary and legislative, despite the emergence of “state auxiliary bodies” (auxiliary agencies) as embodied in state commissions.

The MK ruling – though it was not unanimous – at least shows the impartiality of the MK regarding the KPK’s independence. In placing the KPK as part of the executive branch, the KPK could be subject to an investigation under the House Special Inquiry Committee.

The MK ruling falls in line with the intention of the House politicians who initiated the right of inquiry to investigate the KPK. The KPK has tried to defend itself by arguing that the commission is an independent institution and not part of the executive, so it cannot be an object of inquiry. However, the arguments of the KPK and a number of constitutional law experts, which were based on a number of other MK rulings, collapsed. Five constitutional judges – Arief Hidayat, Anwar Usman, Wahiduddin Adams, Manahan Sitompul and Aswanto – argued that the KPK was part of the executive.

This is different from the four other Constitutional Court judges, Saldi Isra, I Dewa Gede Palguna, Maria Farida Indrati and Suhartoyo, who, despite losing the vote, insisted that the KPK was an independent institution, not part of the executive, and therefore could not be an object of House inquiry.

The 2018 MK ruling has the potential to contradict earlier MK verdicts. The 2018 MK ruling is a constitutional interpretation of the House’s authority to investigate the government\'s policies. This authority is stipulated in the Law on Legislative Institutions. In its judicial review of the Law on Legislative Institutions, the MK expanded the inquiry right of the House, including investigating the KPK.

Meanwhile, the KPK Law and a number of more explicit MK decisions on the KPK affirms that the KPK is an independent institution no power can interfere with. Article 3 of the KPK Law states: "The Corruption Eradication Commission is a state institution which, in carrying out its duties and authority, is independent and free from the influence of any power."

We are grateful that, even though the majority of the MK judges has placed the KPK in the executive branch, the commission’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities are areas the House cannot touch. The 2018 MK ruling and other MK verdicts, as well as the KPK Law itself, provide assurances on the independence of KPK.

Therefore, amidst the political and legal pressures surrounding KPK, we urge the KPK to continue its work in eradicating corruption in this country. Sting operations against corruption suspects, if any, should be undertaken. The KPK and the eradication of corruption is a mandate of reform that must be completed. History will tell.