Irawaty Wardany, Jakarta – Legal experts believe an article in the 2002 Corruption Eradication Commission Law violates the principle of the presumption of innocence and equality before the law.
"How can someone be punished before legally binding rulings have been handed down by the court," Rudi Satrio, a legal expert from the University of Indonesia testified before the Constitutional Court on Wednesday.
The hearing was part of a judicial review process of Article 32 in relation to the suspension of the two Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputies, Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah, who the National Police have named as suspects in relation to allegations of bribery, abuse of power and extortion. Both Bibit and Chandra have been suspended from their positions due to their status as suspects.
Rudi then compared the KPK law with the 2003 Constitutional Court Law, the 2006 Supreme Audit Agency Law, the 2002 Broadcasting Law and the 2004 Law on Judicial Commission.
"All of the laws stipulate that members of the commission, body or institution can only be discharged if the court has handed down a legally binding ruling or if they are found guilty of criminal charges," he said.
He challenged Article 32 (1), arguing that it violated the presumption of innocence principle.
Former member of the National Commission of Human Rights, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, shared a similar view saying the presumption of innocence was a right of each citizen and the state must protect it so that they had a fair and objective criminal process.
"The Constitution also upholds the principle of equality before the law, he said "Why is it that other legal or state institutions such as the Supreme Court, the BPK and Bank Indonesia uphold the presumption of innocence by stipulating that their members can only be discharged if the court has handed down a legally binding ruling?"
The government was represented by the Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar who argued the government and the lawmakers designed the KPK law in such a way because they expected the KPK commissioners to have moral integrity and honesty. "We expect them to be like angels," he said.
Besides, he added, the article was made to maintain the image and authority of the KPK so that KPK leaders who were defendants could focus on the prosecution process of their criminal cases. "I'm sure that requires time and consumes energy," Patrialis said.
During the session he also asked for an explanation from presiding judge Mahfud MD about the relevancy of playing the voice recording of a conversation between Anggoro Widjojo, brother of corruption fugitive Anggoro Widjojo, with several high ranking officials at the National Police and the Attorney General's Office (AGO) plotting a scheme to frame Bibit and Chandra, with the judicial review filed by the KPK deputies.
Mahfud argued that Article 32 (1) of the KPK law was prone to be fabricated in its implementation. "Therefore we need to hear whether the allegations were fabricated, even though I believe the aim of the article is good," he said.
The hearing was then adjourned for an indefinite time and Mahfud ordered all related parties to submit their conclusions to the court on Wednesday. "We will determine the next session after that, with an agenda to hear the judicial review ruling," said Mahfud, who is also the Constitutional Court chief.