Law revision necessary to support, strengthen KPK

Law revision necessary to support, strengthen KPK Aknolt Kristian Pakpahan ;  A Japan-Indonesia Presidential Scholarship Recipient at the School of Philosophy and Political Science, TU Dortmund, Germany, A Lecturer at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung

JAKARTA POST, 11 Oktober 2012

There are two major issues related to the position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) that have raised concerns among the public and anti-corruption activists in Indonesia.

The first being the House of Representatives’ intention to revise Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK and the second is the police’s attempt, on Friday, to arrest the KPK investigator who is handling a high-profile graft case that implicates a police general.

The House’s bid to amend the law was met with strong opposition from the public who deem the revision to be aimed at weakening the KPK.

In his speech intended to respond to the feud between the KPK and the police on Monday, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono clearly sided with the public by saying such revision was untimely.

The incident on Friday, which saw dozens of police officers, including those assigned to internal affairs surrounded the KPK headquarters to arrest Comr. Novel Baswedan, further demonstrated the undermining of the KPK.

Looking at these two events, a revision to the KPK law is necessary as long as it leads to strengthening of the anti-corruption commission and avoids future conflicts between the KPK and the police.

From a historical point of view, the KPK was formed due to the urgent need to effectively eradicate the rampant corruption that plagues the country.

Even though many state agencies entitled to deal with corruption cases, such as the National Police, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the government financial audit agency (BPKP) had been in place at the time, corrupt practices remained prevalent so a new and independent agency with greater authority was needed to address graft.

Up until the present day, the corruption facing our nation is considered extraordinary. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 100th in its Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 with a score of three of a possible 10. This is further exacerbated by the increasing number of graft cases that implicate House politicians as well as law enforcers, such as police officers, prosecutors and judges.

The series of events relating to the KPK, which climaxed in President Yudhoyono’s speech, should serve as momentum in the strengthening of the KPK through an amendment of the law.

First, in dealing with the need to establish a KPK supervisory board as requested by the House, we can refer to the parliamentary model practiced in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. John R. Heilbrunn (2004), in his paper titled Anti-Corruption Commissions: Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?” said the model has two committees that help the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) operate in an accountable manner.

The first committee, called the Parliamentary Joint Committee, is assigned to supervise and review ICAC operations. Its members are selected from parliament.

The second committee, the Operations Review Committee, focuses on providing advice to the anti-graft commission.

It advises whether to continue, suspend or terminate a case and authorizes the commission to initiate an investigation.

The NSW state model can be applied in Indonesia as an effort to monitor the KPK’s performance and uphold the checks and balance mechanism that will prevent the KPK from a possible abuse of power.

In this case, the Parliamentary Joint Committee in NSW-ICAC’s model is more suitable for KPK than the toothless oversight commission adopted in the Supreme Court, the AGO or the National Police.

The KPK supervisory commission should be independent and its authorities should be free from interference or influence from other powers. While the Operations Review Committee can be seen as the current KPK’s Advisory Board.

Second, an important aspect of the KPK law amendment lies in Chapter 2 Article 6-10 concerning coordination between KPK, the National Police and the AGO in handling corruption cases.

A clear coordination and well-knit cooperation is a must to prevent miscommunication and coordination errors among the three law enforcement agencies.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) KPK, the National Police and the AGO signed in March 2012 needs refining so as to serve as the basis to revise the KPK law. Revision of the article is necessary in order to avoid repetition of unnecessary conflicts between KPK and the police force.

Now it is up to the government and the House whether to make changes to the KPK law. In order to reduce conflicts that will otherwise undermine efforts to combat corruption, the KPK should be supported and strengthened, rather than weakened. ●