TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court (MK) read out the trial results of the lawsuit on the material and formal review of Law Number 19 Year 2019 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission on Tuesday, May 4, 2021. The result of this decision, the Constitutional Court rejected all formal lawsuits or the process of revising the KPK Law.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court granted some of the controversial Law’s judicial review lawsuit. Here are four facts in the Constitutional Court decision regarding the KPK Law.
Reject Formal Test Lawsuit
The MK judge rejected the entire formal test lawsuit or the process of establishing the KPK Law. “Rejecting the applicants’ application in its entirety,” said MK Chairman Anwar Usman when reading the application which was posted on MK RI’s YouTube.
The members of the KPK Law Advocacy Team, Agus Rahardjo, Laode M. Syarif and Saut Situmorang, have filed this formal trial.
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the petitioners stating that the KPK Law did not go through Prolegnas and that there was legal smuggling had no legal grounds. The Constitutional Court also believes that the Corruption Eradication Commission Law has fulfilled the principle of clarity of objectives.
Constitutional Court Judge Wahiddudin Adams is the only member of the panel of judges with a dissenting opinion regarding the formal review of the KPK Law. Among other things, he highlighted the relatively short time to discuss the revision of the KPK Law.
Wahiduddin stated that several changes to the provisions concerning the KPK in Law Number 19 of 2019 have fundamentally changed the posture, structure, architecture and function of the KPK.
“These changes appear to be deliberately carried out in a relatively very short period of time and carried out at a specific momentum,” Wahiduddin said reading his views, Tuesday, May 4, 2021.
Wahiduddin said that the specific momentum, namely during the results of the 2019 Presidential Election and Pileg, had been known and received joint approval between the DPR and the President. The revision of the KPK Law was then ratified by the President into Law a few days before the end of the term of office of members of the DPR for the 2014-2019 period and several weeks before the end of the President’s government in the first term.
Minor Changes Question SP3
Despite rejecting the formal test, the Court granted part of the material test lawsuit. One of them is about the termination of the investigation alias SP3 by the KPK. “Declaring the phrase ‘not completed within a maximum period of 2 years’, in article 40 paragraph 1 of Law number 19 of 2019, is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force,” said MK Chairman Anwar Usman, when reading the verdict .
The Constitutional Court changed the phrase by providing a benchmark for two years since the issuance of the Notification Letter for the Commencement of Investigation (SPDP).
In a hearing to revise the verdict of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law, the Constitutional Court decided that wiretapping, searches and seizures did not require the permission of the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas). The reason was that Dewas was not a law enforcer. The Constitutional Court changed this provision by stipulating that every Corruption Eradication Commission to search, tap or confiscate must notify Dewas.
Also read: Facts about the Dissenting Opinion of the Constitutional Court Judge Wahiduddin Adams at the KPK Law Session