Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
The debate on the wiretapping authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) continues to escalate. After the parliament decided to include the amendment to the KPK Law in this year’s National Legislation Program (Prolegnas), lawmakers are now pitching the idea to establish an independent institution to oversee the KPK.Fahri Hamzah, Deputy Speaker of the House asserts that an external independent institution is an absolute necessity to supervise how the KPK operates, particularly its wiretapping powers. Currently, the KPK can bypass the authority of the Ministry of Communication and Information when exercising its wiretapping authorities. He emphasizes that if wiretapping is supervised by an external independent institution, eradicating corruption may be conducted without human rights violations.
According to Mr. Hamzah, the Constitutional Court has declared that wiretapping is a violation of human rights, and therefore any kind of wiretapping must be regulated under a law. Conversely, while the wiretapping authority of the KPK is already included under KPK Law, such activities during the investigation (penyelidikan) phase remains problematic.
Commenting on the issue, Lawmaker Abdul Kadir Karding (Commission III) said that the revision of the KPK Law does not intend to impair its functions, but rather to strengthen the KPK. He believes that the KPK is being too prejudiced against the amendment. According to him, many parties just want to clearly clarify the duties and responsibilities of the KPK’s wiretapping authority.
Lawmaker Karding firmly believes that the amendment can provide a solution to enhance the function of the KPK at pre-trials and prevent its cases from being thrown out. In addition, he also asserted that implementing standard operating procedures (SOP) is not sufficient for wiretapping. Given these considerations, Karding says that it is reasonable to ask the court to perform supervision over the KPK’s wiretapping authority—in other words, the KPK will be required to obtain a court order every time it wishes to conduct wiretapping.
Regarding the 2015 Prolegnas, Lawmaker Karding says that any discussions will not happen soon. Commission III is putting more focus on discussing the Draft Bill on the Criminal Code (RKUHP) and will then continues on to the Draft Bill on Criminal Procedural Law (RKUHAP).
“The amendment to the KPK Law is not going to happen this year, as we are focuing on RKUHP and RKUHAP,” said Karding.
Another Lawmaker from Commission III, Aboe Bakar Alhabsy added that the revision to the KPK Law must be taken in order to strengthen the anti-corruption institution. He understands the suspicion of possible impairment that comes from anti-corruption activists and the KPK commissioners.
“Don’t think that the revision means we are pro-corruptors and means impairment of the KPK,” said Lawmaker Alhabsy.
In line with Karding, Alhabsy also believes that losses by the KPK in several pre-trials indicates that the KPK’s duties and responsibilities need further evaluation. There is also a need to audit the performance of the KPK, especially in relation to its wiretapping authority.
“Don’t make light of this, one loss means a fatal error. Wiretapping should really obtain permission from the court,” Alhabsy concluded.
(hot/kc)
Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
The debate on the wiretapping authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) continues to escalate. After the parliament decided to include the amendment to the KPK Law in this year’s National Legislation Program (Prolegnas), lawmakers are now pitching the idea to establish an independent institution to oversee the KPK.Fahri Hamzah, Deputy Speaker of the House asserts that an external independent institution is an absolute necessity to supervise how the KPK operates, particularly its wiretapping powers. Currently, the KPK can bypass the authority of the Ministry of Communication and Information when exercising its wiretapping authorities. He emphasizes that if wiretapping is supervised by an external independent institution, eradicating corruption may be conducted without human rights violations.
According to Mr. Hamzah, the Constitutional Court has declared that wiretapping is a violation of human rights, and therefore any kind of wiretapping must be regulated under a law. Conversely, while the wiretapping authority of the KPK is already included under KPK Law, such activities during the investigation (penyelidikan) phase remains problematic.
Commenting on the issue, Lawmaker Abdul Kadir Karding (Commission III) said that the revision of the KPK Law does not intend to impair its functions, but rather to strengthen the KPK. He believes that the KPK is being too prejudiced against the amendment. According to him, many parties just want to clearly clarify the duties and responsibilities of the KPK’s wiretapping authority.
Lawmaker Karding firmly believes that the amendment can provide a solution to enhance the function of the KPK at pre-trials and prevent its cases from being thrown out. In addition, he also asserted that implementing standard operating procedures (SOP) is not sufficient for wiretapping. Given these considerations, Karding says that it is reasonable to ask the court to perform supervision over the KPK’s wiretapping authority—in other words, the KPK will be required to obtain a court order every time it wishes to conduct wiretapping.
Regarding the 2015 Prolegnas, Lawmaker Karding says that any discussions will not happen soon. Commission III is putting more focus on discussing the Draft Bill on the Criminal Code (RKUHP) and will then continues on to the Draft Bill on Criminal Procedural Law (RKUHAP).
“The amendment to the KPK Law is not going to happen this year, as we are focuing on RKUHP and RKUHAP,” said Karding.
Another Lawmaker from Commission III, Aboe Bakar Alhabsy added that the revision to the KPK Law must be taken in order to strengthen the anti-corruption institution. He understands the suspicion of possible impairment that comes from anti-corruption activists and the KPK commissioners.
“Don’t think that the revision means we are pro-corruptors and means impairment of the KPK,” said Lawmaker Alhabsy.
In line with Karding, Alhabsy also believes that losses by the KPK in several pre-trials indicates that the KPK’s duties and responsibilities need further evaluation. There is also a need to audit the performance of the KPK, especially in relation to its wiretapping authority.
“Don’t make light of this, one loss means a fatal error. Wiretapping should really obtain permission from the court,” Alhabsy concluded.
(hot/kc)