Material Test of KPK Law Nonsense
Thursday, 16 November, 2006 | 12:11 WIB

TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta: The proposal for material testing of Law Number 30/2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is regarded as groundless.

“The proposers' argument was too nonsensical,” said Eddy O.S. Hiariej, a lecturer in criminal law from the Faculty of Law at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, during an “Expert Meeting” yesterday (11/15) in Jakarta.

Eddy's opinion was conveyed in response to the material testing proposal of KPK Law which was proposed by several convicts of corruption case such as Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin, former Chairman of Election Commission, and Mulyana W. Kusumah, former member of the Election Commission, to the Constitutional Court.

In addition to questioning the KPK, they have also sued the Corruption Court which the same law stipulates.

The proposers of the material testing have argued that the KPK is not mentioned in the 1945 Constitution and lies outside the system of national government, as well as not having accountable control and responsibility.

They also consider that the institution has overlapped the roles of the police and attorneys.

“This has created legal uncertainty. The rights to investigate and to prosecute are already on the hands of police and attorneys,” said Sirra Prayuna, Mulyana's legal counsel, yesterday (11/15).

However, Eddy did not agree.

According to him, not all institutions must be specified in the constitution since KPK's existence and authority to investigate and to prosecute have already been guaranteed by the law in question.

He also rejected that there was any lack of responsibility.

“Based on the law, the KPK has to prepare an annual report for the President, the DPR and the Supreme Audit Agency,” he said.

Regarding the proposers' opinions that the KPK's existence upsets people, Mahfud Md, another speaker at the meeting, also rejected this.

He instead questioned the parameters that have been used to explain the disturbance.

“It has unclear criteria,” said this former Defense Minister.

Eddy has also rejected Mulyana's disagreement about the tapping and recording which were considered as contradictory with the basis of presumption of innocence and violating citizen's rights on security.

According to him, tapping was part of the authority of legal investigation that law regulates.

“Corruption is an extraordinary crime so a conventional approach is not enough to eradicate it,” he said.

However, Mulyana denied that his statement of the material testing proposal was his attempt to disband the Corruption Court or to restrict its authority.

“This is wrong. Instead, I thought that the Corruption Court must be strengthened with three elements: stronger, detailed, and complete legal ground; the institution's independence, and the existence of a punishment parameter,” he said.

TITO