The ruling of the Constitutional Court (MK) to grant the request of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputy chairman Nurul Ghufron has caused controversy. MK has been deemed to be “offside”.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
In the name of justice, fairness and interinstitutional equality, KPK deputy chairman Nurul Ghufron petitioned the Constitutional Court to extend the terms of office of KPK leaders from four to five years. Five of the court’s justices, namely Anwar Usman, Arif Hidayat, Manahan Sitompoel, Daniel Yusmick and Guntur Hamzah, ruled in favor, while four justices, Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo, opposed the request.
Another question arose following this decision: Will Firli Bahuri and his peers continue in their present roles until 20 Dec. 2024 instead of 20 Dec. 2023, or does the Constitutional Court's decision apply to KPK leaders for the 2023-2027 term? This remains a legal debate. However, MK spokesman Fajar Laksono said the court’s decision was effective from the moment it was declared.
Why is the court’s decision controversial? There are a number of things to explain. The term of office of the KPK leadership has been four years from the beginning, ever since the KPK was led by Taufiequrachman Ruki, Antasari Azhar, Abraham Samad to Agus Rahardjo. Never has a petition for judicial review been filed as Ghufron has done. It is based on Law (UU) No. 30/2002 on the KPK. This is a historical consideration.
Second, why did the Constitutional Court enter an area outside their jurisdiction and authority? Issues such as the term of office and age requirement for KPK commissioners are the domain of lawmakers, namely the House of Representatives (DPR), and the government. The Constitutional Court always follows “open legal policy”. The court was formed based on Law No. 24/2003, which was signed by then-president Megawati Soekarnoputri. The KPK was formed earlier, even though the legal basis for the Constitutional Court is stronger.
Third, if the five Constitutional Court justices based their decision on fairness and equality like the other commissioners, why didn't they refer to other commissions, such as the National Police Commission, Prosecutor's Commission, Central Information Commission, or the Press Council, none of which have five-year terms? The term of office for commissioners at these institutions is either three or four years.
Fourth, where and what was Ghufron's constitutional loss? If Ghufron suffered constitutional loss, isn't there also constitutional loss for the candidates who will run for the 2023-2027 KPK leadership period, or a constitutional loss to the public due to stagnation in the change of KPK leadership? Isn't the current KPK leadership having problems? Isn't that a consideration?
After the five MK justices issued their ruling, it is up to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo whether or not to issue an executive presidential decision. However, we hope there will be a meeting between the President, the DPR and the Constitutional Court to discuss and find a solution to this chaos. Isn't deliberation and consensus a characteristic of the state that is based on the state ideology Pancasila?