Frenky Simanjuntak, Jakarta – Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this country's long war against corruption, no institution breaths power more than the Corruption Eradication Commission, or the KPK.

This year alone, the KPK has shown that it can reach almost anywhere. And yet at the same time, some people in this government are scheming to strip the KPK of its power.

Soon, the legislation sub-committee of the House of Representatives Law Commission will prepare a law regulating the procedure of wire tapping. The argument behind this move has come about because according to some members, KPK's strategic wire taps have been an invasion of privacy.

One example cited was the use of a recorded conversation between alleged corruptors Al-Amin Nasution, from the House, and Bintan district secretary Azirwan. The conversation revealed Al-Amin's intent to request a certain service (presumably sexual) to be provided by Azirwan.

The Justice and Human Rights Ministry has also produced a draft law for the Corruption Court (UU TIPIKOR), and this has been submitted to the House for review. In the draft are some regulations which can be perceived as a move to undermine the KPK's present authority.

There are also some concerns over the process of reviewing this law, since based on the Constitutional Court ruling in December 2006, it must be finalized before December 2009, otherwise Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK, on which the Corruption Court is based, could be deemed unconstitutional. Special cases need special treatment.

The present situation leads us to question, does the KPK need all of its power? Is it necessary for a government institution to have so much authority in order to effectively combat corruption? To handle corruption in Indonesia, I believe they do.

Under one of the most corrupt despots in the world for 30 years, the Indonesian government system has been totally infested with corruption. The reform era and the decentralization movement has fragmented the once centralized nature of corrupt behavior, making it localized and "un-organized".

Like a cancer, corruption spread into all levels of government and institutions, establishing local "players" in every part of the country, who run amok and sucked the benefits from development projects for themselves or their groups, in the name of autonomy.

Whereas the new wave of scoundrels have emerged from beneath the wave of reform era, from the ashes of New Order the old players still lurk, partially unharmed.

Against this setting, the KPK is born. They were tasked to fight a seemingly invincible enemy. In a rare case of good judgment, the government provided the KPK with enough firepower to actually do something – in the form of Law No 30/2002 on the KPK.

In it, the KPK was given enough ammunition and armor to put up a good fight against corruption. Judging from the circumstances, it is undeniable that the KPK really needs all the authority and power it has.

What the KPK faces is a powerful enemy; seasoned veteran cronies of the old regime, as well as the new, young, hungry rats ready to scavenge on the spoils of the new "reform" era.

They have resources far beyond the KPK's budget, they are smart and have enough power to reach and influence every aspect of government.

They can influence public attorneys, judges even law makers. Hell, in some cases, they are attorneys, judges and lawmakers. They have the power to orchestrate the process of trials, even from inside penal facilities.

The KPK must have enough power and authority to be able to combat enemies like this, otherwise their efforts will be futile. This power and authority, provided by the Law No 30/2002, is now in peril of being undermined by members of the government.

It is absolutely imperative for people to continuously check the power divested in the KPK. We don't want them to abuse their position and breech the sanctity of private life of Indonesian citizens.

In terms of using phone taps as a means of gathering information, there should be a mechanism to prevent this from being misused. In America, wiretapping can only be used by law enforcement agencies with warrants from the attorney general or judge.

This accountability mechanism can be adopted here, although judging by the present situation, appointing the attorney generals or state judicial offices as warranting institutions would not be a smart idea, considering that they are clearly part of the problem.

Instead, the Corruption Court, with its special team of judges, would be a good choice to be given this mandate. Thus, it has become crucial to legislate the law for the Corruption Court.

The mechanism for accountability should be one of the important elements to be included in this law.

Suffice to say it is important for us to always keep vigilant on how the KPK uses the authority it has been given. But judging by what we have seen, day by day across all media, we should be more concerned about those who we lend power and authority to every five years – who represent us.

They should be the ones we are worried about, because come the elections next year, these people will have the opportunity to be sitting in their comfortable chairs in Senayan again. I believe not all House members are corrupt. Not all politicians are rotten, so what people can do is deny the truly rotten politicians the opportunity to call themselves our representatives. We can identify them, and come Election, not vote for them.

[The writer is a researcher at Transparency International Indonesia.]