Corruption Court Threatened With Closure
Wednesday, 20 December, 2006 | 15:38 WIB

TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta: The Constitutional Court has decided that the destiny of Corruption Crimes Court will be determined within the next three years.

If in three years’ time the corruption court is still not regulated in a separate law, the special court for corruption will be pronounced as no longer having any legal foundation, or in other words, will be closed down.

“Article 53 of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law contradicts Articles 24 and 28 of 1945 Constitution,” said Jimly Asshiddiqie, Constitutional Court Chairman, when reading out the judgment during a trial that was open to members of the general public at the Constitutional Court yesterday (19/12).

Although Article 53 has been declared to be contradictory, the Constitutional Court said that the corruption court could still pass sentences in cases related to KPK investigation results during the next three years.

The reason for the possible closure, said Jimly, was because this article has been found to no longer be valid, KPK investigations and the corruption court could be hampered because they do not have legal standing.

“The corruption eradication process could become confused and cause legal uncertainties, which the constitution does not wish,” he said.

A request for a judicial review on the KPK Law has been proposed by the KPU (General Elections Commission) corruption case convicts, Mulyana W. Kusumah and Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin, and several other KPU members.

They are of the opinion that several articles of the KPK Law violate their constitutional rights as citizens.
Mulyana, for example, questions the tapping authority by the Commission.

Nazaruddin and other KPU members question the corruption court, which is regarded as a part of the KPK as it was formed based on the KPK Law.

The Constitutional Court said it considered that Article 53 causes double standards in the judicature system: in general court and the special court for corruption.

According to the Constitutional Court, corruption court has specificity in terms of panels of judges.

“Article 53 has resulted in two institutions because different decisions may be made,” said Maruarar Siahaan, one of the Constitutional Court judges.

The judgment was not with full acclamation from the nine Constitutional Court judges.

H.M. Laica Marzuki, one of the judges, had a different opinion regarding the three-year term for the corruption court.

This is because, he said, the Constitutional Court’s decision was final and binding since the time that it was declared.

“Article 53, which contradicts the 1945 constitution, does not have any binding law anymore since it is annulled,” he said.

Sukma Loppies, Erwin Dariyanto and Imron Rosyid