Ary Hermawan, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court ruled Tuesday the Corruption Court must disband in three years, unless the House of Representatives enacts a new law to mandate the tribunal's existence.
In its ruling, a panel of judges said the creation of the Corruption Court under the 2002 law that also established the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was against the Constitution.
The court scrapped an article in the KPK law on the establishment of the Corruption Court but stressed that the verdict would only take effect after three years from Tuesday, pending the enactment of a special law.
"The court decides to give time for smooth transition until the new law is made," Constitutional Court chief Jimly Asshiddiqie said when reading out the ruling.
Jimly said all graft cases must be tried in general courts should the government fail to meet the deadline.
He ruled the establishment the Corruption Court had caused "duality" in the judiciary because suspects tried in two different courts could receive different treatment. "It shows that there is a double standard in fighting corruption, which leads to the absence of legal certainty," he said.
Article 53 of the KPK law states the Corruption Court is established to specially try corruption cases investigated by the KPK. Graft cases handled by the Attorney General's Office are taken to general courts. Almost all suspects tried by the anti-graft court are sent to jail, unlike those on trial in the general courts.
Critics have accused the government of political discrimination in combating corruption because those charged by the AGO are treated differently from those whose cases are prosecuted by the KPK.
The judicial review of the KPK law was requested by graft convicts – former National Elections Commission head Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin and member Mulyana W. Kusumah – who were both jailed by the Corruption Court. Another petitioner is also a graft convict, Tarcisius Walla.
The verdict was greeted positively by the KPK and anticorruption activists. KPK deputy chief Tumpak H. Panggabean welcomed the judges' decision to provide a transition period. "I will use the time to urge the House to make a law that does not run counter the Constitution," he said.
Although the House was notorious for its slow pace of legislation, Tumpak was upbeat the mandated law would be enacted within a year. "I believe the government and the House are still committed to eradicating corruption."
House law commission member Gayus Lumbuun said the verdict would have a profound impact on the antigraft drive and promised the House would swiftly respond to it.
However, he disagreed with the Constitutional Court's decision to postpone the effectiveness of the verdict. "It is beyond the court's authority," Gayus said.
Under the KPK law, verdicts handed down by the Corruption Court are legally binding after they are read out.
Representing the petitioners, lawyer M. Assegaf accused the Constitutional Court of being inconsistent, saying the ruling should have taken effect immediately.
"Three years is too long," he said but agreed that a transitional period was needed to avoid disruption in the judiciary. "Six months should be enough," he said.
Anti-graft activist Denny Indrayana similarly welcomed the court's ruling and hoped the special law to set up an ad hoc anticorruption court would end public perceptions the government was discriminating when enforcing the law.
"We should appreciate the ruling as it embraces an antigraft spirit," he said.