Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Save KPK

By: Firdaus Arifin
Writer: Lecturer Constitutional Law Section and Secretary of Constitutional Studies Center Faculty of Law, University of Pasundan, Bandung, West Java, Indonesian.
Published by: The Daily Pikiran Rakyat, 28 Nopember 2006.

LISTENED to reports on the new corruption survey released by Transparency International (TI) in 2006 is certainly our pleasure and pride. This is because, Indonesia based on data released by TI regarding corruption perception index (GPA), a 2.4 GPA and was ranked the 130th of 163 countries. This figure is better than the year 2005, IPK Indonesia in 2005 reached 2.2 and was ranked the 137th of 159 countries surveyed. Besides Indonesia scores also rose this year and 0.2 points compared with 2005 last year, Indonesia's ranking this year a little better. In 2005, Indonesia sits on the sixth position of the 158 most corrupt countries in the world, while Indonesia is currently ranked the seventh most corrupt country among 163 countries. Although the results of a survey of IT is still considered unsatisfactory by many, but at least if evaluated the results gave a positive glimmer of hope in efforts to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. Surely we all agree that the progress and success of the eradication of corruption, not apart from the role and contribution of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in eradicating corruption in Indonesia.

Since the beginning of its presence, the Commission has invited a lot of public attention, many people hoped the Commission could be a solution to the logjam of corruption that occurred during this. Follow up his various moves were made by the Commission as an effort in the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.
Please note, if viewed from the historical aspect of corruption in Indonesia, the Commission is not the institution or the first team was formed to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. History records from the period 1967-2002, had eight institutions / teams eradication of corruption was formed as an effort to eradicate corruption. Once in the New Order (New Order) the establishment of institutions / teams formed to eradicate corruption from the first time on 2 December 1967, through Presidential Decree. 228/1967 Corruption eradication team name. Institution / t im both, established by Presidential Decree. 12/1970 dated January 31, 1970 Four Commission team name. Institution / third team was formed in 1970 a team of Anti-Corruption Committee (KAK). Institution / fourth team was formed in 1977 through Presidential Instruction No.. 9 / 1977 name OPSTIB team. Institution / fifth team, in 1982 the Corruption Eradication Team (TPK) is turned on again. However, Presidential Decree regulating ironically more about the duties and authority of TPK was never realized.

At the time of the reform push and pressure from the people and to launch an eradication of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) is so great in the New Order government, the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) make improvements to Law No. 3 Year 1971 on Eradication of Corruption became Law No. 31 Year 1999 on Eradication of Corruption act. The next set of institutions / sixth team, through a Presidential Decree. 127 In 1999, a Commission inspection team Wealth of State Officials (KPKPN). Institution / seven teams established by Government Regulation (PP) No.. 19 In 2000 a joint team eradication of corruption (TGTPK). Finally, after the dissolution of established institutions TGTPK / eight teams, based on Law No.30/2002 with the name Pemerantasan Corruption Commission (KPK).

Although currently most people who rate the performance of the Commission is still less than satisfactory, but if a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of eight institutions was formed to combat corruption, the Commission's performance as a result of the new institution "for the rest of the corn" in the anti-corruption efforts can be said to be good enough and satisfactory than seven institutions had formed a kind of before. This can be evidenced from the success of the Commission reveals many cases of corruption of state officials. Many of those state officials who eventually became defendants sentenced to prison even lead to no light. Several corruption cases of government officials who successfully dismantled by the Commission among other things, the purchase of helicopters corruption cases committed by the former Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Abdullah Puteh, corruption cases that occurred in the General Elections Commission (KPU), which involves Samsyudin KPU Chairman Nazaruddin and Mulyana W. Kusumah. In fact, the Commission managed to uncover performance and prove that the mob justice has been roaming the world to dismantle our judicial bribery case involving a lawyer Probosutejo, Harini Wijoso, and employees of the Supreme Court Pono Waluyo.

Apparently, the results of the Commission's performance is quite successful in uncovering cases of corruption do not reap something positive, the response that occurs only made the corruptors feel hot and full of anger that caused resistance implications in the form of counterattack corruptors (corruptors fight back) which is currently enjoying his sentence in the "hotel without cost". Counterattack strategy corruptors done elegantly and systemic. This is in order for the Commission as the front guard of corruption in Indonesia has become a toothless tiger with no power. His form at the end of last August, they are the corrupt through his legal request a judicial review. The applicant did request testing efforts (judicial review) of Law No. 30/2002 against the 1945 Constitution to Mahkmah Constitutional Court (MK) with registration number No.12/PUU-IV/2006 case, No.16/PUU-IV/2006, and No. 19/PUU-IV/2006.

Of the three applications above, there are six main issues that the applicant submitted. First, the existence of the Commission. Second, the existence of a special court (ad hoc) corruption (Corruption). Third, the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence (presumtion of innocent) associated with the absence of authority for the Commission issued a Letter of Termination Investigation and Prosecution (SP3). Fourth, the existence of wiretapping and recording instruments. Fifth, the provisions / rules and the application of the phrase "a troubling concern the public" in article letter b Law Commission. Sixth, the application of retroactive principle in handling criminal cases of corruption by the Commission.

When examined, the corruptors backlash to the Commission through a judicial review of Law No. 30/2002 cause anxiety and concern various circles, especially for those who concentrated on the eradication of corruption in Indonesia. Because it is not impossible the end of the story behind the corruptors attack resulted in the dissolution of the Commission by the Court. Reflecting on the experience shows Teams Eradicating Corruption (TGTPK) had disbanded by presidential decree forming the test in the Supreme Court (MA). In addition, the Court also noted two times to correct the "bang on" the eradication of corruption through its decision, the Law Commission states can not retroactively effective (retroactively) so that the Commission can not investigate corruption cases before the enactment of Law Commission in 2002, and declared the offense evidentiary material in the follow corruption can no longer be used. Then the question is what steps and strategies that can be done to save the Commission from the threat of liquidation?

The steps and strategies that can be done now to save the Commission is, first, to mobilize support and build the discourse and public opinion that supports the existence of the Commission. Since we all agree that corruption is a crime of extraordinary (extraordinary crime) who require treatment in a way that non-conventional / abnormal. Second, experts and professors who asked to be expert witnesses in court cases judicial review of the Act the Commission can provide insights that justify and support the existence of the Commission. To fight corruption because it takes a law enforcement agency that has authority as the Commission superbody. The second step of this strategy is very urgent to be done as a way out in saving the Commission before the Court decision set. In addition, it is important to do because the Court is a trial court opinion, and checks on the Court did not speak the fact that there are real, but based on the opinions and thoughts, and theories alone are not like conventional courts to prioritize the facts revealed dipersidangan. Finally, the trump card that could save the Commission currently completely in the hands of the guardian of the nine judges of the constitution.

We hope that the judges of the Constitutional Court judges is not a figure like the one described by the great philosopher and constitutional laws of France Montesquieu (1689-1755) the judge who just became a trumpet / mouthpiece Act (de la bouce de la Loi). But the judge who becomes the funnel's sense of justice. Because after the existence of the Commission must be preserved and saved. If not, prepare for this country would be "Heaven" for the corrupt.

0 komentar:

Google Translate

English French German Spain Italian Dutch

Russian Portuguese Japanese Korean Arabic Chinese Simplified

Law School



Reflection Constitutional Reform 1998-2002

Guest Book

Free Page Rank Tool