TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - In November last year, the Corruption Eradication Commission’s (KPK) Deputy Chair Nurul Ghufron filed a request for judicial review of the Article 29 sub-paragraph e and Article 34 of the KPK Law to the Constitutional Court.

He argued that the first article stipulating that a prospective KPK leader must at least be 50 years old was a breach of the candidate’s constitutional rights. He also petitioned for a review of the second article that restricted the term of the KPK leaders to only four years.

And the Constitutional Court granted all of Ghufron’s petitions. In a hearing held on May 25, the judge changed the Article 29 sub-paragraph e to “at least 50 years old or possesses prior experience as a KPK leader.” The change will enable Ghufron to run again for the next period. The court also agreed to extend the leaders’ term of office from four years to five years.

The court’s ruling eventually landed the judge in a controversy. He was seen as overstepping his authority when he added a provision which is the jurisdiction of the legislative body, the House of Representatives (DPR). The verdict also ignored the fact that the KPK was no longer independent as under the law it was now part of the government’s executive branch.

“The four-year term has an ‘institutionalized’ moral message: don’t stay too long,” Busyro Muqoddas, KPK Chief for the period 2010-2011, told Tempo on June 7.

Various events that the KPK had been mired in contributed to the fall in Indonesia’s position from 38 in 2021 to 34 in 2022 on Corruption Perception Index (IPK) released by Transparency International. In terms of public trust, the survey result by Indikator Politik Indonesia puts the KPK at the 6th place as a trusted institution after the Indonesian Military (TNI), the president, the National Police, and the Attorney-General’s Office. Nurul Ghufron was aware that his petitions would be accused of being politically oriented since the term of the new KPK leaders would end after the 2024 general elections. Many see the probe into the alleged corruption by Agriculture Minister Syahrul Yasin Limpo as an attempt to crush the National Democrat (NasDem) Party that does not see eye to eye with the government on presidential candidates. “My perspective is to equate or equalize rights,” Ghufron told Tempo on May 30.

***

KPK Deputy Chair, Nurul Ghufron:

KPK’s Independence Remains Unchanged

What is the reason behind your petition for the judicial review of the KPK Law?

A judicial review is a facility or a right given by the Constitution to every citizen. I feel my constitutional right was undermined when I was called immature to run for the chairman position. That’s why I submitted a judicial review request of Article 29 sub-paragraph e. Article 34 is about the four-year term (for the leaders). It’s inconsistent. The laws, regional regulations, and laws regarding other complementary state institutions, for example, the Judicial Commission, Ombudsman, National Commission on Human Rights, General Elections Commission, Election Supervisory Commission, and around 12 non-ministerial state institutions stipulate the same length of tenure: five years.

Is this a personal or an institutional initiative?

When I informed the other leaders, some gave the green light or gave a nod but I didn’t require their approval.

Do you want to serve longer?

People may perceive it that way. But my perspective is to equalize or equate rights. Equality of rights. If the standard is five years and the KPK applies six or seven years, maybe I will ask for a reduced term instead.

<!--more-->

Some view that the ruling reeked of politics because the KPK is handling a case that can affect presidential nominations.

Because you are aware of the previous position I held. It’s not relevant if I’m considered to have political motives. I’m not part of that. In essence, this is a legal process. If this legal process is signified or interpreted politically by external parties, that’s their right.

The problem is the KPK is no longer independent…

Actually, I submitted my petition at the end of last year and it was ruled in the middle of this year closer to the 2024 general elections. So, like it or not I can’t avoid the public’s political perception. Then it was linked to KPK’s performance, reputation and the IPK, and so on. That’s the public’s right even though in my perspective, the right to ask for equality has no political context.

The level of public trust in the KPK has also fallen...

The decline is about reputation and perception depending on contexts. Since we were established until when the KPK Law was revised with the 2019 KPK Law, the public sphere was already echoed with pessimism that changing (the law) was aimed at weakening the KPK. Who set off the echoes? Who challenged the TWK (civic knowledge test) up till its judicial review? Well, the same people.

Is the decline in public trust objective or subjective?

If it’s objective, we have to talk about the data, not perception. Based on the data, during our first year, we foiled corruption and salvaged Rp594 trillion. That’s through prevention. This figure in the first year alone exceeded the amount saved in five years in the previous period. But this data was never picked up. What they raised were the negative points. For instance, graft busts. How could we conduct busts during the pandemic from early 2020 to 2021? We were lucky to (catch) two ministers.

***

Former Chair of KPK for 2010-2011, Busyro Muqoddas:

KPK Has Been Playing with Politics

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling?

The verdict can’t be separated from a salient political background which is the revision of the KPK Law. The new law has taken away KPK’s independence. The KPK is now under the president who functions in the shadow of his political party. That already spells problems. If a law enforcement agency, let alone the one fighting corruption is no longer independent, who will believe that the KPK won’t become a political tool, be it in government matters or business politics. This situation is further exacerbated by the obligation (of KPK employees) to become civil servants.

These successive events quite easily led to a logical opinion that the KPK that filed a request for a judicial review which later was granted by the Constitutional Court is an inseparable part of a vulgar political movement. Unfortunately, the court promptly ruled the case without heeding (the concern of) several parties of original historical authority, for example, that if the KPK now has the tendency to become a political tool. The Constitutional Court should have listened to independent experts. But they didn’t, did they? Without naming certain cases, some of the cases have been closed such as Harun Masiku, Meikarta, land reclamation, the BLBI (Bank Indonesia Liquidation Assistance), and several other cases. From there, you can see how strong momentary political interest is.

Nurul Ghufron said that the petition was a personal initiative. Is it normal?

It makes sense if he is no longer a KPK leader. But since he still is, it is very difficult (for him) to build an argument that he has a legal standing as an individual. I don’t believe in the claim of ‘personal initiative’ to take his own decision as a leader because it’s impossible given KPK’s collective collegial leadership model.

Ghufron said the petition was aimed solely to demand an equal term of office like that of other agencies.

He must flashback to the history to see why it is four years. We also need to see the product analysis of this four years term. Has there been any problem? No problem at all. Problems only emerged in Firli Bahuri’s era.

Did the previous KPK commissioners have the idea to request the term extension?

It never crossed our minds individually, let alone institutionally. We adopted a code of ethics that when their terms end, KPK leaders should not hold public positions like commissioners or the likes to prevent as much as possible perception by would-be KPK leaders that they could become commissioners after working in the KPK.

What were the consequences?

For early prevention, in the future don’t let prospective KPK leaders have morally wrong calculations (regarding the KPK) and consider it as a stepping stone.

What is your primary criticism of the tenure extension?

The four years (tenure) have an ‘institutionalized’ moral message: don’t stay too long.

Read the Full Interview in Tempo English Magazine