The judicial review of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law (Tipikor) at the Constitutional Court (MK) has once again stirred public debate. The Movement for Fair Corruption Eradication filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief, arguing that the two articles should be revised as they distort the direction of anti-corruption efforts, create legal uncertainty, and open the door to criminalization and politicization.
Responding to this issue, UGM criminal law expert, Dr. Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, stressed that the articles should remain in force but require a clearer and more precise interpretation.
According to Dr. Akbar, an amicus curiae is a legal opinion submitted to MK judges to assist their deliberations.
“Judges may consider an amicus curiae as a reference, but the decision ultimately lies with them. In the context of Articles 2 and 3, I believe these provisions must be preserved, not removed, to prevent weakening corruption eradication,” he explained on Thursday (Sep. 4).
Dr. Akbar emphasized the importance of establishing strict interpretive limits. He argued that the element of “unlawful conduct” in Articles 2 and 3 should be confined to criminal acts explicitly regulated under Articles 5 to 13 of the Anti-Corruption Law, such as bribery or embezzlement of office. In this way, Articles 2 and 3 function as provisions for sentence aggravation.
“If interpretation remains overly broad, the risk of criminalization arises. Therefore, judges must narrow the interpretation, and ideally, the articles themselves should be revised to prevent multiple interpretations,” he said.
Nevertheless, Dr. Akbar opposed the removal of Articles 2 and 3, asserting that such a step would weaken anti-corruption efforts.
On the other hand, leaving them without interpretive limits would lead to injustice. The middle ground, Dr. Akbar argued, is to retain the articles while clarifying their substance and restricting their application.
“These provisions are crucial to address serious forms of corruption. But their enforcement must be ensured. Ultimately, there must be legal certainty that protects society while also strengthening anti-corruption measures,” the expert concluded.
Author: Ika Agustine
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Illustration: Freepik
Post editor: Rajendra Arya