BAHASA INGGRIS

Muhammad Rizal Norazid

(190910101117)

Jurusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik
Universitas Jember
 All praise and gratitude we pray to Allah SWT and blessings and greetings we
convey only to our leaders and examples of the Prophet Muhammad SAW. In this
discussion talking about corruption. Corruption or rasuah comes from the corruptio
Latin from the verb corrumpere which means rotten, damaged, shaking, turning,
bribing. Corruption is everywhere for example corruption committed by Slobodan
Molisevic he was president of Serbia from 1989-1997 and president of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia from 1997-2000. In 2001, he was arrested for corruption and
abuse of power. Milosevic was handed over to the UN war crimes tribunal in The
Hague where he was charged with crimes againts humanity and the illegal us of $ 2. 1
billion in government funds. In Indonesia there were also cases of corruption for
example the E-KTP procurement case is one of the most phenomenal cases of
corruption. The case that dragged Former Golkar Party Chairperson Setya Novanto has
been rolling since 2011 with total state losses reaching Rp 2. 3 trillion.
In Indonesia as an effort to eradicate corruption, then in the from Corruption
Eradication Commission. The Corruption Eradication Commission was established in
2002 by President Megawati Soekarnoputri, because at that time Megawati saw that the
AGO and the police were judged to be incapable of arresting corruption. The idea to
from the Corruption Eradication Commission emerged long before President BJ
Habibie, who issued Law number 28 of 1999 concerning the administration of a state
that was clean of corruption, collusion, nepotism.
The House of Representatives together with the goverment approved the
revision of Law Number 30 Year 2002 cocerning the Corruption Eradication
Commission. Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) assesses that all the point in the Act
will weaken the KPK and become a backward point in eradicating corruption.
Note Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) revision of the KPK Law is not new,
since 2010 the DPR and the government have alternately proposed changes. Starting
from the formation of the Supervisory Board, limitation of state losses that can be
investigated by the KPK, the existence of institutional time, the authority to issue an
Ivestigation Termination Order (SP3), to the wiretapping arrangement. The
strengthening narrative that has been mentioned by the DPR or the government is only a
mere hallucination.
 I am here as a person who rejects the revesion of the KPK Law for several
reasons, i.e.

KPK is no longer an Independent State Institution

Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 3 of the KPK Law: The Corruption Eradication
Commission is a state institution within the executive power group that carries out the
task of preventing and eradicating criminal acts of corruption in accordance with this
law.
This rule collides with four decisions of the Constitutional Court at the same
time, namely in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011. The decision confirms that the KPK is not
part of the executive, but an independent state institution as mentioned in Article 3 of
the previous KPK Law.
Establishment of a Board of Trustees
Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 37 A of the Corruption Eradication
Commission Law: The Corruption Eradication Commission consists of a Supervisory
Board of 5 (five) persons. In order to oversee the implementation of the duties and
authority of the Corupption Eradication Commission formed a Supervisory Board as
referred to in Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a.
The concept of an independent state institution basically does not recognize
supervisory institutions, but what is focused is on building a monitoring system. So,
conceptually the logic theory of the DPR and government is wrong. The KPK itself has
so far been monitored by the public, in terms of financial audit mechanism of the
Supreme Audit Board, performance through the DPR with a Hearing Meating forum,
and the anti-religious agency periodically reports its performance to the President.
Specifically in the enforcement action, the KPK is responsible for the judical authority
instutitions.
KPK Can Stop Case Handling
Article 40 paragraph (1): The Corruption Eradication Commision can stop the
investigation and prosecution of cases of Corruption Crime which investigation and
prosecution has not been completed within a maximum period of 2 (two) years.
The existence of this Article means that KPK may at any time issue an
Investigation Termination Order (SP3). Of course this point will conflict with the
Constitutional Court Decisions of 2003, 2006, and 2010 which explicitly prohibit the
KPK from issuing SP3. This is simply so that the KPK be more careful before
determining a case to enter the realm of investigation. If even after entering the realm of
investigation but the evidence found was declared insufficient then the court’s decision
on the case must be prosecuted or released.
KPK Employees Will Be A State Civil Apparatus
Article 1 number 6, Article 24 paragraph (2): Corruption Eradication
Commission employees are the state civil appratus in accordance with statutory
provisions concerning state civil apparatus.
So far, not all KPK employees are included in the State Civil Apparatus.
Because there are KPK permanent employees and non-permanent employees. Of course
such conditions are necessary to adjust the conditions quite long. Besides that, the
important point is that in the concept of an independent state institution, one of the
characteristic is independence in human resources. Of course if equalized employment
status of independent state institutions.
Large Cases with Specific Complexity Potentially Terminated
Article 40 paragraph (1): The Corruption Eradication Commision can stop the
investigation and prosecution of cases of Corruption Crime which investigation and
prosecution has not been completed within a maximum period of 2 (two) years.
With the time limit for investigation or prosecution for only 2 (two) years, it
will be difficult for the KPK to dismantle large cases that are classified as complicated.
For example, a KTP-EL corruption case only takes 2 years to obtain a state loss
calculation. Moreover, basically each case has different disclosure complexity, so it is
not appropriate if it has limited by a certain time.
The Authority of Tapping KPK is Interrupted
Article 37 B paragraph (1) letter b, Article 12 paragraph (1): The Supervisory
Board is tasked with giving permission or not giving permission for wiretapping, search
and confiscation. In carrying out the task of investigation and investigation, the
Corruption Eradication Commission has the authority to conduct wiretapping.
Even though the wiretapping by the KPK cannot be arbitrary, the iretapping is
proposed by the KPK investigation directorate who has collected information material.
The investigation director then propose wiretapping to the leadership of the KPK,
wiretapping can only be done if it approves and signs a wiretapping warrant.
The tapping instrument is one of the tools for the KPK to dismantle corrupt
practices, especially in catching hands so far. The KPK said that so far the KPK had
caught 123 hands with 432 suspects. The important point is that since the Corruption
Eradication Commission was established until now there has not been a single
defandant who was netted in the hands of being caught and acquitted by the Court.
So the conclusion is that the KPK is needed because only those who can
eradicate corruption within the political elite. And also the KPK continues to save state
money by carrying out its duties and responsibilities. And for DPR you are the people’s
representatives or voices so you must be wise, this country is a democratic country not a
state based on the interests of certain individuals or groups. Now there are still many
KPK corruption, let alone the KPK eliminated, whether corruption is also lost, of course
corruption wiil NOT disappear.