Importance of Additional Punishment

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

A General Election Commission (KPU) official inspects lists of candidates for seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) at the KPU Office in Jakarta on Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2018. The determination of candidates for the DPR, Provincial/City Legislative Councils (DPRD) and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be announced on Thursday, Sept. 20.

The General Elections Commission (KPU) has no other choice but to abide by a Supreme Court (MA) ruling that enables former corruption convicts to contest next year’s legislative election.

The ruling is a precedent in that it enables former convicts in drug-related crimes and sexual crimes against minors to contest legislative elections. This is because the ruling repealed KPU Regulation (PKPU) No. 20/2018 on House of Representatives and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) candidacy, as well as PKPU No. 26/2018 on the Amendment of PKPU No. 14/2018 on Regional Representatives Council (DPD) candidacy. The two PKPU banned the three types of former convicts from running in legislative elections.

In line with Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections, former convicts have the right to contest legislative elections. However, they must publicly announce their criminal past. The problem is that, it is difficult to ensure that all former convicts contesting elections do this, thereby enabling voters to make informed decisions in the polling booth. As is common among criminals, corrupt people often deny any wrongdoing on their part despite their crimes having been legally proven in court. Furthermore, the status of former convict is often seen as humiliating.

Consequently, former convicts running in elections may choose to hide their past from voters, making it highly likely that former convicts in corruption, drug and sexual crimes against minors will be elected as legislators.

The milk, figuratively speaking, has been spilt. The MA has made its ruling and the public has no other choice but to respect it. We can always protest the formality of how the ruling was made, as it has been deemed to violate Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court (MK). Under the law, if bylaws used in judicial reviews of lower regulations at the MA are themselves under judicial review at the MK, then the MA is required to hold back from making any ruling on said judicial reviews until the MK has ruled in its judicial review. The MA cannot possibly revise its ruling and the MK cannot review the MA’s ruling.

The hope of establishing a clean government, free from corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) – as stipulated in People’s Consultative Assembly Decree (TAP MPR) No. XI/MPR/1998 on Clean and KKN-Free State Governance – now lies with political parties. Despite it being legal, political parties should not let members who are former convicts run in elections as it is ethically and morally questionable. However, it seems that this hope is futile as political parties are divided over the MA ruling. Six political parties have declared that they will not propose former convicts as legislative candidates, while other parties either remain adamant about doing so or are waiting for the KPU’s response to the MA ruling.

The hope of establishing clean and KKN-free state governance also lies with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The KPK can still propose additional punishment for corruption convicts, including the revocation of their political rights. It is judges who will hand down such additional punishment. However, if the people support the move, the judges will surely hear them. After all, the voice of the people is the voice of God – vox populi, vox dei.