Polemics on amendments to anti-corruption law still continue. The strong response from the public has not stopped parliamentarians from discussing such amendments. Amendments to contentious issues are seen as a way by the Parliament (DPR) to weaken the Anti-corruption Commission (KPK). Deputy Chairman of the Commission, Laode M Syarif, said such amendments were actually not necessary.
“Anti-corruption measures that are taken by the Anti-corruption Commission are effective enough, thus amendments to anti-corruption law are not necessary. The ongoing attempts to amend it will impact systematically to the weakening of anti-corruption measures,” said Laode in the seminar held by Centre for Anti-corruption Studies (PUKAT) of UGM on Monday (20/3) in the University Club UGM.
In the seminar titled Tracking the Role and Performance of Parliament on Anti-corruption, Laode said the Parliament needs to listen to the Commission to know what is needed for anti-corruption movement, instead of limiting the manouvres of the Commission. He raised the wiretapping issue done by the Commission, which he said was not a case to worry about, just need to be specifically regulated.
“(Wiretapping) Is not a problem if we ask for a permit from the court. But what if the one involved is the prosecutors or the judge themselves; there must be a conflict of interests. We’re doing pro justicia wiretapping, not randomly,” he said.
On the role of the DPR, he said the DPR as a legislative council should pay attention to the people’s interests and they should be held accountable if their function is used to weaken anti-corruption measures instead. Laode further asked the public to monitor and reject firmly attempts to weaken the Commission.
Chairman of PUKAT, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, said the root of the problems was a too big authority of the DPR that gives room for them for manipulations.
“The authorities of the DPR after the reform have extended beyond. The power that once was at the hands of the President had been drawn to the DPR due to the post- Soeharto trauma that was felt, and now the DPR not only has 3, but with 2 more functions,” he said.
This includes the monitoring function by the DPR. According to Zainal, ”the function is interpreted too extensively, but not supported by commitment and capacity, whereas in the Presidential system, the DPR should be directed towards the president in order to oversee his authorities, not overseeing everybody instead,” said Zainal.