Bring Back My KPK

What’s up with your Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)? This question is often raised by fellow anticorruption activists from other countries in various international forums, both online and offline.

The curiosity from fellow activists begs to question: in the history of its development, how exactly are the dynamics of the power relations between KPK and the President?

How about the roles and behaviors of the House of Representatives, political parties, the public (specifically NGOs) in the dynamics of the power relations between the two institutions.

Embryo of the KPK

Four presidents— Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Megawati Soekarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) and Joko Widodo —have influenced and shaped KPK development. Gus Dur paved the way for the birth of the KPK through the signing and delivering of the cover letter for draft law No. R-13/PU/VI/ 2001 on KPK establishment, on 5 June 2001, to the House. His impeachment as president on 23 July 2001 ended his role in establishing KPK.

Earlier on 23 February 2001, 40 members of the House from the United Development Party (PPP) faction signed and submitted the draft law to the House leaders. This bill was initiated by the House. At that time, the PPP was progressive in the effort to establish the KPK. PPP general chairman M. Romahurmuziy was later caught red-handed and convicted of corruption, which seems like historical bad luck for the PPP.

Also read: Corruption Law Enforcement Dilemma

Of course, not only politicians had an important role in the birth of the KPK. In fact, it was actually a civil society organization that initiated the birth of the KPK. The Indonesian Transparency Society (MTI), which at that time was chaired by the late Mar\'ie Muhammad, was very instrumental in helping the KPK. There were also Koesnadi Hardjasoemantri, Nurcholish Madjid, Palguna T Setyawan, Sabam Siagian, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Kemal Azis Stamboel, Arief T. Surowidjoyo, Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, Sudirman Said and others.

It was told in the book KPK Berdiri untuk Negeri (KPK Stands for the Country), Mar\'ie, who was once the finance minister, sold two of his private cars to finance MTI\'s activities at the beginning of its formation. In fact, the financial condition of "Mr Clean" (the nickname for Mar\'ie) as a retired civil servant was not in good shape at that time. Koesnadi Hardjasoemantri\'s story was different. He deposited his pension fund. The interest from the deposits was donated to the MTI movement.

Also read: Corruption Remains Massive, What Next...

Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo

Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigators who were victims of hydrochloric sprinkling Novel Baswedan (center) accompanied by the Chairman of the Indonesian Prosecutor\'s Commission (Komjak) Barita Simanjuntak (left) gave statements to journalists at the Komjak RI Office, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta, Thursday (2/7 / 2020).

During the Megawati period — who signed Law No. 30/2002 on KPK — there was relatively no critical moment that tested the urgency of the KPK\'s power relations with the President. This is because the KPK under the leadership of Taufiequrachman Ruki at that time was more focused on building an internal system within the KPK and building good relations with police institutions and the prosecutor\'s office.

A corruption case that emerged during this period pertained to the procurement of helicopters involving Aceh Governor Abdullah Puteh. Puteh was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He became the first regional head to fall victim to the KPK. The handling of this corruption case fostered and strengthened public trust in the KPK.

Also read:Largest Payback in Corruption Case

There was no disclosure of corruption cases involving law enforcement officials — the police, prosecutors or judges — in this period. Later, in the following period, the disclosure of corruption cases involving law enforcement officers had become an important marker and yardstick for the power relations between the KPK and the President.

Cradle of conflict

During SBY\'s presidency, the KPK saw two crises, namely the "lizard versus crocodile" conflict, Volumes I and II. The Volume I conflict centered on Comr. Gen. Susno Duadji, the then chief of the Criminal Investigation Department at the National Police. The KPK tapped his cell phone because Susno was suspected of being involved in disbursing customer funds at Bank Century.

Then the KPK commissioners — Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M Hamzah — were suspected of being "criminalized". After being pressured by the public, finally SBY reacted and fulfilled the public\'s request. He formed an independent fact-finding team (Team 8), chaired by longtime lawyer, the late Adnan Buyung Nasution. The team concluded that there was no sufficient legal basis and evidence to charge Bibit and Chandra. Both of them were proven not to accept bribes as alleged. Team 8 asked the President to stop "criminalizing" both of them. Finally, the Attorney General\'s Office stopped the legal process against Bibit and Chandra.

Also read: The Need for Political Reform in Corruption Prevention

The Volume II conflict centers on Insp. Gen. Djoko Susilo. He was suspected of corruption in the procurement of a driving simulator. KPK investigator Novel Baswedan led the investigation of this case. Then Novel was allegedly also "criminalized". He was accused of seriously assaulting a swallow\'s nest thief in Bengkulu in 2004. The conflict continued with the KPK and the police fought over the handling of the driving simulator corruption case. The KPK and the police were determined to handle the case. SBY was silent for a long time. Again, after being pressured by the public, he finally ordered the then National Police chief Gen. Timur Pradopo, to comply with the law by fully handing over the corruption case to the KPK.

Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo

Social Affairs Minister Affairs Juliari P Batubara wearing a vest of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) after undergoing examination by the KPK investigative team at the KPK\'s Red and White House, Kuningan, Jakarta, on Sunday (6/12/2020).

Apart from that, the President also considered that the legal prosecution against Novel was not appropriate in terms of time and method. Then the Attorney General\'s Office decided to stop Novel\'s case. The attack at Novel (the acid attack) that damaged his left eye actually has roots and a long history of conflict.

SBY\'s two decisions were important and monumental so that the KPK survived the crisis and became stronger. The KPK received full support from the President so that it was free to reveal corrupt practices in the procurement of the driving simulators. Djoko was tried and found guilty.

Also read: Credibility Vital to KPK

In both conflicts, it is clear that SBY can reposition himself not only as president, but also as head of the state. He was able to transcend and escape the siege of conflicts of interest. Including the conflict of interests of the political party he leads.

At that time, many politicians from the Democratic Party were also targeted by KPK. He was successful in dealing with the articulated interests and desires of the Democratic politicians voiced out by Benny K Harman, as chairman of Commission III, who wanted to revise the KPK Law. In mid-December 2010, the House and the government determined the revision of the KPK Law to be included in the 2011 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) priority as an initiative proposal of the House. The following year the House together with the government again agreed to include the revision of the KPK Law in the list of the 2012 Prolegnas Priority Bill.

SBY\'s policy posture did not stand alone, but was supported by two external factors. First, the strength and effectiveness of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) as an opposition party. PDI-P opposed the revision of Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK. PDI-P politician, Ahmad Basarah, who served as deputy secretary general at that time, said the KPK Law was perfect. Therefore, the PDI-P faction consistently rejected (the idea for) the revision of Law No. 30/2002.

Also read: Alarming Signs in Law and Security

PDI-P\'s position as the opposition party for a decade later brought enormous political dividends in political contestation. In the two legislative elections (2014 and 2019) and the presidential election, PDI-P won hands down.

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

Hundreds of students try to avoid tear gas fired by police officers during a demonstration in front of the Senayan DPR Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (24/9/2019). They demanded that the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law be canceled.

Second, the strength and effectiveness of public control. Various elements of civil society organizations at that time effectively resisted and put political pressure on the President, rather not only saving and maintaining the existence of the KPK, but also strengthening it.

President SBY\'s full support has made the KPK a surplus of confidence. You could say this is the KPK\'s golden age. The confidence surplus grew even more when President Jokowi trusted and invited the KPK to participate in the screening of ministerial candidates for Jokowi’s Working Cabinet I. So, actually, at the beginning of his term in office, President Jokowi really believed in the professionalism and integrity of the KPK. Then the KPK — which at that time was driven by Abraham Samad, Bambang Widjojanto, Zulkarnain, Busyro Muqoddas and Adnan Pandu Pradja — provided recommendations for a list of names of candidate ministers who are safe (free) from the possibility of being involved in corruption crimes.

Also read: Combating Corruption Needs Consistency

The overflowing surplus of confidence was manifested in KPK\'s action of prosecuting a candidate for National Police chief, who was suspected of having suspicious “fat” account. This case then pushed the KPK and the police into “the lizard versus crocodile” conflict volume III. In the aftermath, Abraham Samad and Bambang were alleged to have been "criminalized" which led to their resignation as KPK commissioners. President Jokowi approved the dismissal of Abraham Samad and Bambang as KPK commissioners. It seems that this is where the KPK started to decline.

It is from here that the orchestration of deconstruction and reconstruction that has led to the control and weakening of the KPK — through the revision of the KPK Law and the excessive use of digital power — finds its momentum. In the deconstruction process, for example, the KPK was labeled as a hotbed of Taliban fundamentalism, high costs but low asset recovery, the KPK as a state auxiliary institution not compatible with the trias politica understanding, obstructing investment, no one controlling it so it becomes full of power abuse and others.

Back to ‘khitah’

In contrast to the President SBY era, the government and the House this time do not face strong and effective resistance from the opposition party — because it does not exist — and the public, when deconstructing and reconstructing the KPK. All factions in the House agree and endorse the revision of the KPK Law. The public also surrendered to the wishes of the House and the government even though there had been: 1) demonstrations by citizens, activists and students in various places and, 2) petitions from hundreds of economists asking the Perppu (regulation in-lieu-of law) to revive or bring back the Law No. 30/2002

If you care about this country and its future plus you want to care for the legacy of reform, the KPK should still be there and get stronger. The effort to bring back the Corruption Eradication Commission to its “khitah” (basic idea), which is professional, free, independent and integrity trustworthiness, is actually not that difficult. This is a matter of choice, what do you want to be remembered for?

Dedi Haryadi, Executive Member of Bumi Alumni, Padjadjaran University.