By: Rahmat Hidayat) *
Judicial Review is an open step that can be used to find the midpoint of problems related to the KPK Law. The step is certainly worth supporting because the effort is a constitutional step.
Previously, the Chairperson of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) would be the petitioner in a judicial review or judicial review of Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the KPK submitted by the civil society coalition to the Constitutional Court.
KPK Deputy Chairman Saut Situmorang said that KPK leaders would participate as petitioners because they felt they had a legal standing in the polemic revision of the KPK Law.
Saut said, the status of the KPK as implementing the law did not hamper the steps of the KPK leaders to submit a judicial review. However, he did not reveal the reason for the details.
Meanwhile, legal activist Maqdir Ismail also asked the KPK to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Because the Constitutional Court’s decision was made based on the constitution (UUD) so that KPK-class institutions must also obey the product of the decision made.
Maqdir also added that the DPR also has the right to obtain legal legitimacy from the state, because the DPR is directly elected by the people. For this reason, the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding investigations to members of the DPR, MPR and DPD which must obtain written approval from the president is important to be implemented.
We need to know that the issuance of Government Regulations in lieu of laws (Perppu) is considered inappropriate for resolving the polemic of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law. The reason is that the revised KPK Law was automatically effective on October 17, 2019.
When considering the time available, the Perppu is considered ineffective, however effective in changing the revised KPK Law is through judicial review.
We should also have an active role in overseeing the work of the KPK. Students for example can certainly use their intellectual power to strengthen the KPK.
On different occasions, PDIP politician Bambang Wuryanto conveyed that the cancellation of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) law must be through a judicial review, not the issuance of a Government Regulation in lieu of a Law (Perppu).
Related to the discourse on the issuance of Perppu, Bambang said that the step could be taken if it fulfilled the two conditions that occurred. First, the precarious conditions, then the legal vacuum.
The submission of the Judicial Review also received support from the Corruption Eradication Commission (WP KPK) Commission for Supporting the third step of the anti-commission commission.
Support for the Judicial Review process also came from the Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security, Mahfud MD. He said that with the submission, differences of opinion between community groups could be met in the constitutional court.
In addition to differences of opinion between community groups, differences in assumptions and similarities of opinions with the government will also meet at the Constitutional Court. After all of them meet, then the constitutional judges can decide.
Through this process, the public can see the judge’s interpretation based on the jurisprudence and observations of 9 constitutional justices.
One of the authorities of the Constitutional Court is also stated clearly based on Article 1 Number 3 of Law No. 24 of 2003, where one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court is to examine the laws against the above Law, namely the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
This matter needs to be considered substantially because the authority of the Constitutional Court is present to provide open space for anyone who wishes to oppose the people’s legislators who are deemed not in favor of the interests of the people at large. Therefore, the constitutional rights of every Indonesian citizen are represented directly through the Constitutional Court.
On different occasions, the House of Representatives Commission III also respected KPK leaders who had submitted material tests on Law Number 19 of 2019 to the Constitutional Court.
Member of the House of Representatives Commission III Habiburohman said, his party would freely compete with the argument in the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court would certainly make a decision based on careful consideration.
As a new member of the Indonesian Parliament, Habib acknowledged that compliance with statutory provisions in the KPK was in accordance with the standards, all the documentation was complete.
Support for Judicial Review Efforts to the KPK is certainly not without foundation. Journal of the Constitutional Court has explained that there are 2 processes that are interpreted positively, namely encouraging the political process and ending a legal dispute.
) * The author is a social political observer
