Legal Practices of KPK Criticized
Legal Practices of KPK Criticized
A
A
A
JAKARTA - The legal practice conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has been criticized. Understanding of the law from this anti-corruption institution is still considered not appropriate, so that there is potential for deviation on the legal practice.
"The first understanding is KPK's claims regarding its agency as lex specialis derogat legi generali, or the interpretation of the law which states that a special law can override common law," said criminal law expert, Frederich Yunadi in Jakarta on Saturday (7/10).
This understanding, he explained, makes all actions taken by the KPK to override the Book of Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). In particular, Law No. 8/1981, which is the only legal basis of criminal law in Indonesia.
Frederich said that in Article 38 of Law Number 30 of 2002 on the KPK it has been very clear that the authorities relating to investigations, investigations and prosecutions regulated in Law No. 8/1981 also apply to the KPK.
"In Article 38 it is clear that KPK is carrying out its duties and authorities under the criminal procedure law No. 8/1981," he explained.
He said, KPK itself often quibble by declaring all its actions based on Article 39 in the same law. In the article it is mentioned that investigation, investigation, and prosecution of criminal acts of corruption is done based on applicable criminal procedural law and based on Law 31/1999.
Law 31/1999 itself has been amended into Law 20/2001 on Amendment to Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption.
In addition, Frederich also highlighted the determination of suspects who are often made by the KPK which he called problematic. KPK itself is seen always taking cover behind article 44 paragraph (1) of Law 30/2002 as the basis of KPK's right in determining the suspect.
Article 44 paragraph (1) itself reads, "If the investigator in conducting an investigation finds sufficient initial evidence of alleged corruption, within 7 (seven) working days as from the date of sufficient initial evidence, the investigator reports to the Corruption Eradication Commission."
According to Frederich, no single word gives authority to the KPK to determine the suspect under the article.
"The first understanding is KPK's claims regarding its agency as lex specialis derogat legi generali, or the interpretation of the law which states that a special law can override common law," said criminal law expert, Frederich Yunadi in Jakarta on Saturday (7/10).
This understanding, he explained, makes all actions taken by the KPK to override the Book of Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). In particular, Law No. 8/1981, which is the only legal basis of criminal law in Indonesia.
Frederich said that in Article 38 of Law Number 30 of 2002 on the KPK it has been very clear that the authorities relating to investigations, investigations and prosecutions regulated in Law No. 8/1981 also apply to the KPK.
"In Article 38 it is clear that KPK is carrying out its duties and authorities under the criminal procedure law No. 8/1981," he explained.
He said, KPK itself often quibble by declaring all its actions based on Article 39 in the same law. In the article it is mentioned that investigation, investigation, and prosecution of criminal acts of corruption is done based on applicable criminal procedural law and based on Law 31/1999.
Law 31/1999 itself has been amended into Law 20/2001 on Amendment to Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption.
In addition, Frederich also highlighted the determination of suspects who are often made by the KPK which he called problematic. KPK itself is seen always taking cover behind article 44 paragraph (1) of Law 30/2002 as the basis of KPK's right in determining the suspect.
Article 44 paragraph (1) itself reads, "If the investigator in conducting an investigation finds sufficient initial evidence of alleged corruption, within 7 (seven) working days as from the date of sufficient initial evidence, the investigator reports to the Corruption Eradication Commission."
According to Frederich, no single word gives authority to the KPK to determine the suspect under the article.
(rnz)
Explore More