UNS — Constitutional Law Community (CLC) Faculty of Law (FH) Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) Surakarta held Legal Practitioners Discussion on “The Future of Corruption Alleviation After KPK Law Amendment” on Saturday (10/7/2021) through the Zoom Cloud Meeting.
CLC FH UNS invited several speakers to this discussion. These speakers were General Chairman of Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Asfinawati, S.H, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher, Kurnia Ramadhan, S.H, Constitutional Law (HTN) expert FH UNS, Dr. Agus Riwanto, and Constitutional Court (MK) researcher, Dr. Irfan Nur Rachman.
Dr. Irfan Nur Rachman delivered the first material on the prolific corruption cases in Indonesia that always received the media spotlight. He stated that based on the data shared by the Chief of Corruption Alleviation Commission (KPK), Firli Bahuri, in May this year, 1,146 corruption cases occurred between 2004-2021. These cases involved 397 political functionalists. “DPR/DPRD members were involved in 257 corruption cases, Major/Regent involved in 119 corruption cases, and Governors were involved in 21 cases,” Dr. Irfan Nur Rachman explained. Further, he explained that the corruption cases in Indonesia were dominated by bribery during the procurement of goods and services. To avoid this misappropriation, the government has designed an app for the procurement process.
To the 300 discussion participants, Dr. Irfan Nur Rachman connected the growth of corruption cases in Indonesia with the internal issues in KPK. As an MK researcher, he considers polemic as normal to appear in a democratic country because people are free to speak their thoughts and feel as long as they deliver their ideas through the available legal corridors. However, he underlies that a country has a check and balance principle to prevent an abuse of power. Therefore, government institutions must follow the prevailing constitutional principles.
“Under this framework, KPK Law amended by the DPR has legislation, monitoring, and budgeting functions to fix and improve the existing corruption alleviation design and KPK institutional strengthening,” he added. Dr. Irfan also said that if people consider the Law contains verdicts that contradict the highest source of law, it will fall under MK’s responsibility to process the issues to maintain constitutional supremacy.
Supporting Dr. Irfan Nur Rachman material, Asfinawati, S.H, through her material “The Future of KPK – Corruption Alleviation?” discussed the importance of KPK in alleviating corruption in Indonesia. Asfinawati, S.H stated that Law No. 30 of 2002 on Corruption Alleviation Commission, before amended by DPR in 2019, mentioned the basis for KPK establishment. The Consideration Point B Law No. 30 of 2002 mentioned that the existing government body that takes care of corruption cases at the name had not functioned effectively and efficiently in alleviating corruption. Thus, creating an adverse impact on the national economy and the nation’s life in general.
“We could see that alleviation efforts need extraordinary measures,” Asfinawati stated. Thus, legal proceeding through a special institution with a broad and independent authority to alleviate corruption cases is needed. This institution is the seed of KPK as we know it now.
Kurnia Ramadhan, S.H, in his material on “Reflecting the Mistake in Legal Political Direction of Corruption Alleviation,” discussed the sentences for corruption cases that are considered as light. The example of the current corruption case of ex-Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Edhy Prabowo, who was demanded to pay IDR 400 million fine and prison for five years and subsidiary of six months in prison. KPK prosecutor also ordered Edhy to pay IDR 9.6 billion and US$ 77 thousand as a substitute.
“Not to mention Pinangki Prosecutor case which was sentenced to 10 years in prison but was cut into four years by DKI Jakarta High Court,” Kurnia Ramadhan, S.H., said.
From this data, Kurnia Ramadhan, S.H stated that this country still bears losses from corruption cases of high state officials, law enforcement officers, and local government officers. “We also know that maximum fine was only sentenced to six people out of 1,298 people,” he concluded. Humas UNS
Reporter: Yefta Christopherus AS
Editor: Dwi Hastuti