Wiretapping corruption suspects is one of several powers that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) possesses when carrying out its duties. Yet, it is key to the anticorruption commission's success in netting graft suspects – particularly high-profile ones – in the country.

As a consequence, it is perhaps not surprising that repeated efforts have been made to tame, or at least reduce, the commission's powers. The latest one is revisions made to the Criminal Code Procedures (KUHAP), whose draft was submitted to the House of Representatives (DPR) in January.

So as to protect civil liberties, the bill stipulates that wiretapping is illegal, with exceptions applying to 20 serious crimes, including corruption. Article 83 of the bill goes into more specifics by saying that law enforcers are allowed to conduct wiretapping while investigating certain crimes, but they must first obtain warrants from their superiors and a judge. Also, a judge can issue a phone-bugging permit to last 30 days, with an extension for a maximum additional 30 days being allowed.

The reason for the controversy is the necessity for investigators – in this case, KPK investigators – to secure a warrant from a judge to wiretap corruption suspects. Such a clause requiring a warrant from a judge is normal and common practice worldwide. But, the fact that the country's judiciary has been tarnished by questions of its integrity makes it irrelevant not only to prohibit wiretapping, but also to require that investigators secure a judge's permit for lawful interception.

Both the Law and Human Rights Minister, Amir Syamsuddin, and his deputy, Denny Indrayana, have dismissed allegations that the bill would curtail the antigraft commission's power to wiretap corruption suspects and, therefore, weaken it. They said the KPK would be exempted from the clause in the draft bill, suggesting that "The KPK has its own law, which is considered lex specialis", meaning "It does not have to abide by the KUHAP".

Still, this assurance from the two senior government officials does not completely remove the anxiety felt among the public that the KPK could still be subject to this clause in the bill. Andi Hamzah, a former government prosecutor and criminal law expert from the University of Indonesia (UI), has said that even though the KPK had its own law, it may still have to comply with the KUHAP.

Efforts to tame or weaken the KPK by stripping its authority to wiretap corruption suspects are not new. In a proposed revision to the 2002 KPK Law filed in 2011, several lawmakers called for the removal of such authority. Also in the same proposed revision, the lawmakers sought to reduce the commission's authority to that of an ordinary law enforcement agency by allowing for investigations to be halted, contradicting the existing principle stipulated in the law that a KPK investigation amounts to a point of no return, forcing it to focus on cases with solid preliminary evidence.

Those efforts exclude the demands voiced in 2011 by House Speaker Marzuki Alie and Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) politician Fahri Hamzah that the KPK be liquidated for a variety of reasons that ran counter to the general public's expectation of the continuing existence of the commission.

The KPK is indeed an ad hoc anticorruption body that will someday have to be dissolved. But, as long as the two legal institutions with prosecution power, namely the Attorney General's Office (AGO) and the National Police, have yet to achieve their utmost in upholding justice – which was the main idea behind the establishment of the KPK in 2003 – the KPK should remain at the forefront in the fight against corruption.