PROS AND CONS ON THE REVISION OF CORRUPTION ERADICATION COMMISSION (KPK) LAW
- In Editorial
- Post 20 March 2017
- By Andy Romdoni/Ani Hasanah
- Hits: 151
A discourse to revise Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) reemerges and becomes a polemic among the public. It occurs after the House of Representatives Skills Agency (BKD) conducted socialization on the Law revision at several universities. The socialization aims to make the public and academicians more aware of the concept of the discourse suspected to reduce the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)’s authoties. Some of the points that will be revised are on the tightened tapping, the establishment of the board of trustees for the Commission, and on investigation termination warrant or known as SP3.
In early 2016, the revised Law Commission discourse was delivered by some members of the House of Representatives (DPR). At that time, after consultation with the Parliament, President Joko Widodo decided to postpone the revision of the law. The President views that it still needed time to finalize the revision of the Law and the socialization to the public so that it would not be debatable.
Various parties have rejected the discourse on Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is of the view that several points in the revision of the law tend to weaken the anti-corruption institution.
Coordinator of Political Corruption Division of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Donal Fariz believes the House of Representatives (DPR) has two targets in the planned law revision, namely short-term and long-term targets. The short-term one is to break the focus of attention of the Commission. If the revision continues, the Commission, on the one hand, will strive to maintain its authority, while on the other hand, it still does its duty in uncovering corruption. While the long-term target is an attempt to weaken the authority of the Commission. Later, Donald views that the Commission will be controlled by a political force, which can be seen from a plan to establish a Supervisory Board that will be elected by the Parliament. The rejection also came from the Rector Forum and the students.
Revision of the law is not an impossible thing. Law is not a holy book that should not be changed and remains valid forever. Changes may occur as long as the contents of the law are considered no longer suitable to the changing times.
Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) can be changed, but the role and the authority of the Commission should not be reduced. In fact, it should be strengthened. Do not let the Law on Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) be revised only to protect some people suspected to commit corruption to be free from the law enforcement.