Jakarta –
The Constitutional Court (MK) accepted some of the requests for judicial review UU KPK proposed by the Chancellor of the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) Fathul Wahid and the Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia Abdul Jamil et al. There are a number of articles revised by the Constitutional Court.
“In material testing: Granting the applicants’ request for a part,” said MK Chairman Anwar Usman, while reading the application, which was broadcast on YouTube MK RI, Tuesday (4/5/2021).
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the request for material examination of the petitioner with case number 70/PUU-XVII/2019 is justified according to the law for the most part. Meanwhile, for the formal testing of this matter, the MK rejected the applicant’s application.
With the granting of part of the request for material testing of the KPK Law, the Constitutional Court stated that Article 1 number 3 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have the force of conditionally binding law as long as it is not interpreted:
The Corruption Eradication Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Corruption Eradication Commission, is a state institution in the executive power clump that carries out the task of eradicating Corruption Crime, which is independent and free from the influence of any power.
The Constitutional Court also stated that Article 12B, Article 37B paragraph (1) letter b, and Article 47 paragraph (2) of the KPK Law are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and do not have binding legal force.
The Constitutional Court stated that the phrase ‘accountable to the Board of Supervisors’ in Article 12C paragraph (2) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have the force of conditionally binding law as long as it does not mean ‘notified to the Board of Supervisors’.
So, the sound of the article is requested to be changed to:
Tapping as referred to in Article 12 paragraph (1) which has been completed must be accounted for to the Head of the Corruption Eradication Commission and notified by the Supervisory Board no later than 14 (fourteen) working days after the wiretapping has been completed.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated that the phrase ‘not completed within a maximum period of two (2) years’ in Article 40 paragraph (1) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not intended’ is not completed within a maximum period of 2 (two) ) years since the issuance of the Notice of Commencement of Investigation (SPDP).
So, the sound of the article is changed to:
The Corruption Eradication Commission can stop investigations and prosecutions of cases of Corruption Crime, which investigations and prosecutions have not been completed within a maximum period of 2 (two) years from the issuance of the Notification of Commencement of Investigation (SPDP).
In addition, the Constitutional Court stated that the phrase ‘must be reported to the Supervisory Board no later than 1 (one) week’ in Article 40 paragraph (2) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not meant to be notified to the Supervisory Board no later than 14 (four) twelve) working days’.
The Constitutional Court also requested that the sound of the article be changed to:
(2) The termination of investigation and prosecution as referred to in paragraph (1) must be notified to the Supervisory Board no later than 14 (fourteen) working days from the issuance of the order for the termination of investigation and prosecution.
Finally, the Constitutional Court also stated the phrase ‘with the written permission of the Board of Supervisors’ in Article 47 paragraph 1 (one) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not meant ‘by notifying the Board of Supervisors’.
The Constitutional Court also requested that the sound of the article be changed to:
In the process of investigation, investigators can conduct searches and seizures by notifying the Board of Supervisors.
(mae / fjp)
– .
