P-ISSN: 2808-0467

E-ISSN: 2808-5051

Homepage: https://iss.internationaljournallabs.com/index.php/iss

816 This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

BRANDISH RED REPORT CARD: ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN

INDONESIA

Awhan Ibaad El-Adzkiyaa

, Labib Muttaqin

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Indonesia

adzkiyaa.ahwan@gmail.com

lm812@ums.ac.id

PAPER INFO ABSTRACT

Received: March

2022

Revised: April

2022

Approved: April

2022

Background: The tug of war about the revision of the KPK Law since 2010

met a bright spot in 2019 precisely in September 2019, the House of

Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia passed a revision of Law No.

30 of 2002 on the KPK. Although rejected by professors, academics, and

community coalitions, the DPR still fights for its right to weaken the KPK.

Aim: This research aims to explore laws related to KPK to eliminate

corruption in Indonesia.

Method: The qualitative approach and literature review were employed in

this research. The information was compiled from a variety of documents and

other sources. The sources highlight KPK's efforts to eradicate corruption and

how, unfortunately, KPK is prevented from fulfilling its responsibilities.

Findings: It is ironic that the government and DPR agree that Law 19/2019

is in place to improve the KPK's performance. However, when compared to

the performance of the KPK prior to the enactment of Law 19/2019, the

reality is that it has resulted in a considerable drop in performance.

KEYWORDS

independence; KPK; executive

INTRODUCTION

It has been 23 years since the reform era went on, but have the demands for reform on

"Tumpas Korupsi" been implemented? Refusing to forget, Indonesia is a country rich in natural

resources and abundant in terms of tax and non-tax revenues, so to get rich is an easy thing for

the people in Indonesia (Rumokoy, 2016). Unfortunately, the timeless mice still colonize

during the pandemic. Enriching themselves, forming an oligarch to jointly carry out the act of

stealing people's money. The achievement of the rats is dimensional so the corruption

perception index score in Indonesia by Transparency International is 37 out of 100 which

means that a country is getting corrupt with a small score. Whereas in the 2019 presidential

election, Jokowi and Ma'ruf Amin promised anti-corruption with the vision of "Enforcement

of a corruption-free, dignified, and trusted legal system". Sweet remarks that until now have

not been proven, even now more and more become. People who are greedy for property do not

stop to find loopholes so that their crimes are not sniffed by the Corruption Eradication

Commission (KPK) (Romziatussa’adah, 2014). The revision of the KPK Law is the solution.

The tug of war about the revision of the KPK Law since 2010 met a bright spot in 2019

precisely in September 2019, the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia passed

a revision of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the KPK. Although rejected by professors, academics,

and community coalitions, the DPR still fights for its right to weaken the KPK.

The DPR is increasingly sane because it is only a short enough time to discuss the revision

of the KPK Law and pass it at the end of 2019. After that, the ratification of the revision of the

KPK Law attracted many controversies, especially among students and anti-corruption

activists, and the public who considered the ratification of the revision of the KPK Law to be

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

817 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

improper. The wave of action is present to reject the results of the revision of the KPK Law

which is considered to have eliminated the power of the KPK in investigating the existing

corruption cases. This action also demanded the president to issue a Government Regulation

in Lieu of Law (PERPU) which contains canceling the results of the revision of the

controversial KPK Law. However, unfortunately, the President is reluctant to do so. As if

everything has been designed so that the corrupt are free to steal people's money here and there.

Some figures who fight for the KPK institution to remain in its function to the path of the

Constitutional Court (MK) must take a sip of cyanide. Of the 7 lawsuits filed, only a few were

granted by the Constitutional Court along with the issue of dismissal of 75 KPK employees

who did not pass the National Insight Test (TWK) with various indications.

Not stopping at the decline of corruption eradication achievements, Indonesia is now

reaching the peak of comedy. Countries that are supposed to provide fulfillment of life needs

during the pandemic are in fact people's rights are actually deprived. This is very contrary to

the mandate of the Health Quarantine Law. Call it the corruption case that ensnared the former

Minister of Social Affairs, Juliari Batubara, at the end of 2020 with the total money received

by this rat more than 32 billion Rupiah. This figure is quite fantastic considering that the money

can be used to provide assistance to 32 thousand workers affected by layoffs with a nominal of

1 million Rupiahs per person. Either stupid or feel poor, but for sure Juliari has lost his

conscience. Similarly, the organizing officials showed an average increase in the property of

more than 1 billion Rupiah in the midst of the pandemic. Whether it is the reason because

business is skyrocketing in the midst of a pandemic, or it is utilizing the pandemic as a personal

benefit, everything is not justified considering that the condition of the people in Indonesia is

still far from prosperous in terms of the economy that has dropped dramatically due to the

pandemic more than one year (Dirkareshza, Azura, & Pradana, 2021).

METHOD

This research used the qualitative approach and literature study method. The researchers

used various documents and other sources to generate the data. The sources discuss the

implementation of corruption elimination by KPK and how ironically KPK is restrained from

doing its duties.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Juridical Implications of KPK Law Number 19 of 2019

It has been two years since the revision of KPK Law Number 19 of 2019 (KPK Law)

which was passed on September 17, 2019, ago. However, instead of getting better, there are

some revised articles that actually seem to weaken the KPK itself. As stated in Article 37A

paragraph (1) of Law No. 19 of 2019 concerning the Establishment of a Supervisory Board that

aims to supervise the implementation of KPK duties and authorities. In fact, before the revision

of the Law, the KPK already has an Internal Supervision and Community Complaints Field

that has a role in overseeing the implementation of KPK duties and functions to be in

accordance with the laws and regulations set by the KPK Leadership itself. So that the existence

of the Supervisory Board, according to Sujanarko, raises several serious problems such as

changing the value of religiosity to synergy without academic studies (Wardah, 2021).

Reporting of employees to the Supervisory Board related to violations of the code of ethics by

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

818 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

the leadership is also considered awkward because structurally, the leadership can sanction the

employee directly.

Law No. 19 of 2019 concerning the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 concerning

the Corruption Eradication Commission in Article 12B states that the KPK must obtain written

permission first from the Supervisory Board before conducting wiretaps. Furthermore, in

Article 37B paragraph (1) B, it is also written that the Supervisory Board has the task of

providing permits related to wiretaps, searches, and/or seizures. This will certainly have an

impact on the obstruction of the investigation process carried out because before conducting

wiretaps, KPK employees must wait for permission first from the Supervisory Board. However,

through the Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court

finally canceled the implementation of the two articles above because there was a necessity to

obtain permission from the Supervisory Board before conducting wiretaps deemed not a form

of implementation of checks and balances (Tresna, 2021).

The next thing in the spotlight is the authority of the KPK to issue a Warrant for the

Termination of Investigation (SP3) contained in Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 19 of

2019. In the provisions, it is written that if within a maximum period of 2 (two) years the

investigation and prosecution of corruption cases are not completed, then the KPK can stop it.

This article was then assessed by ICW to be the impact of changes to the KPK Law when SP3

was issued for the case of alleged BLBI corruption carried out by Sjamsul Nursalim and his

wife after harming the state of Rp 4.58 trillion in April 2021 (Kamil, 2021). In fact, this point

is considered contrary to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 006/PUU-1/2003 which

prohibits the KPK from issuing SP3. But then through the Constitutional Court Decision No.

70 / PUU-XVII / 2019, the phrase in Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 19 of 2019 was

changed to "KPK can stop the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases whose

investigation and prosecution are not completed within a period of at least two years from the

issuance of the SPDP.” The change in phrase still does not rule out the possibility that in the

future, major cases that are being investigated can be stopped by the KPK itself.

The last point that is actually very highlighted by many parties is related to the institutional

status of the KPK listed in Article 3 of Law No. 19 of 2019. In the article, there is an addition

of the phrase "The Corruption Eradication Commission is a state institution in the group of

executive power" the previous one only included the word independent and free from the

influence of any power as written in Article 3 of Law No. 30 of 2002. This then raises the

question because on the one hand, the KPK is set to enter into the executive sphere but on the

other hand, the KPK can also still carry out its duties and authority as an independent institution

that is free from the influence of other powers (Asyikin & Setiawan, 2020). Hence, it can be

said that at this time the KPK is not doing well for its performance which has recently been

widely criticized by the public.

In addition, the independence of the KPK itself is also questioned because if anti-

corruption agencies such as the KPK are placed in one branch of power, the anti-corruption

agency will tend to become independent and then result in the ease of intervention against the

anti-corruption agency (Indrayana, 2017). The placement of the KPK into the executive branch

can also be said to limit the wiggle room for the KPK to carry out its duties and functions as

an anti-corruption agency.

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

819 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

Independence of institutions

Etymological independence comes from the English word independence defined by

Black's Law (2021) as "the state or condition of being free from dependence, subjection or

control." In Indonesian can then be interpreted as a state or condition that is free from

dependence, mastery, or control. While according to the Great Dictionary of Indonesian,

Independence is a noun that has the meaning of independence. The adjective of independence

is independent which in the Great Dictionary of Indonesian (KBBI) has the meaning: 1) Stands

alone, which is free-spirited; and b) Not bound, free.

In the institutional order of a country, it is known as an Independent State Institution (LNI)

or Independent Regulatory Agencies/Bodies. The term refers to different types of institutions,

organizations, or institutions that are autonomous or independent (Verhoest, Roness,

Verschuere, Rubecksen, & MacCarthaigh, 2010). In Indonesia, the establishment of these

independent institutions is a trend that occurs after the amendment. There are at least some

fundamental characteristics of independent state institutions (Tauda, 2011) namely:

1) In carrying out its duties, the independence of the state institution is expressly stated by

the legal basis of its preparation;

2) Independent in question has the meaning of being separated from power, ambition, and

dominance of executive power; and

3) The abdication of responsibility and the determination of members of independent

institutions using a specially prepared system does not rely on the wishes of the

President.

Based on Law No. 30 of 2002, the KPK as an independent state institution has fulfilled the

three conditions mentioned above, one of which is one of the meanings of KPK independence

is institutional or institutional independence (Tauda, 2011). However, when the contents of the

Law were revised, the independence of the KPK became shaken by the inclusion of the KPK

into the executive branch although there was still the word "independence" in the article. This

then raises the question of the purity of the independence that exists in the KPK body.

Employee Independence

When the KPK Law was revised and the KPK changed its status a lot, the staffing status

of KPK employees also later changed. Previously, all staffing mechanisms were self-regulated

by the KPK as an independent institution. However, in accordance with Article 1 paragraph (6)

of the KPK Law, KPK employees are now included in the part of the state civil apparatus

(ASN) and are under the supervision of the Ministry of State Apparatus Utilization and

Bureaucracy (KemenPAN-RB).

The occurrence of this change in status then gave rise to various polemic problems related

to the independence of KPK employees. With the transfer of status to ASN, the employee

recruitment system that was originally within the authority of the KPK must now be based on

Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus. This can certainly result in the performance of

the KPK itself because it is actually thanks to the independently managed staffing system that

the KPK can carry out its duties well so far. So if the selection process of KPK employees is

then handed over to the government and bound by the ASN Law, it will affect the flexibility

and courage of the KPK further in investigating corruption cases in the government body.

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

820 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

Based on Law No. 5 of 2014 concerning ASN, a civil servant can be transferred at any

time to another state institution. Determination of the location and position of this mutation

process is the authority of the government. So that when KPK employees are made ASN, then

this will affect the performance of handling a case and does not rule out the possibility of

mutations in the middle of the process. In addition, another impact caused by this transfer of

status is KPK investigators who also turned into Civil Servant Investigators or PPNS. In fact,

in Article 7 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP it is stated that PPNS is carrying out its duties under

the supervision and coordination of the Police. This can then make it difficult for KPK

investigators if they will handle cases involving the Police later (Madril, 2020).

KPK Employee Transfer Process

After signing Law No. 19 of 2019 which regulates the transfer of the status of KPK

employees, President Jokowi then issued Government Regulation No. 41 of 2020 containing

the stages of transferring KPK employees to ASN. Furthermore, further rules of Commission

Regulation (Perkom) No. 1 of 2021 were established to strengthen details about the procedures

for transferring the status of employees of this anti-corruption commission.

One of the things added to Perkom No. 1 of 2021 is the National Insight Test or TWK

which is a debate between various parties. One of the causes of TWK being polemic is because

the forms of questions asked as part of the implementation of TWK itself are not in accordance

with the context. This National Insight Test is intended to complement the provisions of loyalty

and obedience to Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, NKRI, and the legitimate government as

stated in the Perkom. However, from the stories of a number of KPK employees who have

carried out the test, the questions that arise are questions that are too direct to the realm of

privacy such as the willingness to remove the hijab, the reason for divorce, and even the reason

for following the account of an ustadz who likes to criticize the government (Mata Najwa,

2021).

Komnas HAM also assessed that the implementation of this National Insight Test

presented at least 11 forms of violations against Human Rights (Prasetiyo, 2021). Some of the

rights violated include the right to justice and legal certainty, the right to freedom of religion,

the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of opinion. These questions have entered the realm

of privacy. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or DUHAM, one type of

human right that every individual has is a Personal Right which is included in the Right to

Express Opinion. Of the 75 KPK employees who are considered not to have passed the

kindergarten, most are handling major cases (Egeham, 2021). It can be said that there are

indications that the absence of these employees is the result of critical thinking toward the

government. In addition, Komnas HAM also mentioned that the existence of questions that

lead to certain religious beliefs that are not relevant to the competence and scope of employee

work is a form of violation of Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Jo Constitution. Article 18

of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning xxx and Article 18 of Law No. 12 of 2005 concerning The

Ratification of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Komnas HAM, 2021).

Not only that, but KPK Watch Indonesia also mentioned that this National Insight Test

was unconstitutional (Andi Saputra, 2021). Unconstitutional itself according to KBBI is "not

based on the constitution or the basic law; contrary to (Violating) the basic law" (KBBI, 2021).

So, KPK Watch Indonesia argues that stipulating that someone is appointed or not appointed

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

821 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

as an ASN based on TWK is contrary to the contents of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945

Constitution. Making KPK employees ASN within the framework of the state of law must be

carried out in accordance with applicable law, not for certain interests. However, after KPK

Watch Indonesia filed a judicial review of the implementation of TWK, the Constitutional

Court then decided that the process of implementing TWK was not contrary to the 1945

Constitution and remained constitutional (Prasetiyo, 2021).

Comparison of KPK Performance Before and After KPK Law Revision

In September 2019, the DPR officially passed Draft Law No. 19 of 2019 concerning the

Commission on Combating Corruption which has been considered controversial. This KPK

Law is also the second amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002. The process of forming the KPK

Law was also speeded up as soon as possible, as a result, making the public question the

urgency of the establishment of this KPK Law. It turns out that the procedure for making this

Law is considered legally flawed because this KPK Law has never been included in the priority

Prolegnas. In drafting the Law, both those from the DPR and the President are required that the

preparation of the Law must be based on Prolegnas, therefore, if this KPK Law is to be passed,

it should be included first in the Prolegnas.

In contrast to other communities also with the DPR, Arteria Dahlan – Member of

Commission III of the DPR – denied that this KPK Bill was not included in the Prolegnas, he

said that the Revision of the KPK Law had been included in the Prolegnas in 2015 and 2016.

Obviously, it seems that from the beginning of this Lawmaking procedure already looks gray.

Therefore, it is not wrong if the public questions the urgency of the revision of the KPK Law.

Many also revealed that the revision of the KPK Law is also seen as having implications for

the weakening of corruption eradication efforts in Indonesia because there are several articles

that will actually weaken the performance of corruption eradication carried out by the KPK.

Influence of Supervisory Board Presence on KPK Performance

One of the new things from the revision of the KPK Law is the presence of the supervisory

board in the KPK body which in the previous law in the KPK body does not know all the names

of the supervisory board. The new model of supervision of state institutions by using the

supervisory board as a new organ in the institution raises pros and cons because in every

structural official there is already an internal supervisory section and as an effort to control the

community, the KPK opens a complaint section if the public knows of a corruption crime and

supervises the performance of the KPK (Hikmah, 2020). The new model and supervision of

state institutions by using the supervisory dewas as a new organ in the institution raise pros and

cons because in every structural official there is already an internal supervisory section and as

an effort to control the community, the KPK opens a complaint section if the public is aware

of a corruption crime.

In this revision of the KPK Law, there are privileges of authority given to the supervisory

board which is alleged to weaken and hinder the performance of corruption eradication. As a

result, the KPK supervisory board will interfere in the technical affairs of the case in the KPK.

Not to mention that it turns out that the supervisory board can grant or not give written

permission to the request for permission, wiretap investigation, search, and seizure no later

than 1 x 24 hours from the time the permit request is submitted. In the design of corruption

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

822 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

eradication, the relationship between the board of trustees and also KPK employees is not

subordinated but synergizes with each other in carrying out their respective functions because

the Supervisory Board is not hierarchical with the KPK Leadership to maintain independence

and freedom from any power, including when carrying out pro-justicia actions such as

wiretapping as a form of deprivation of the independence of others (Rachman, 2021). The

actions of KPK employees who must ask permission from the supervisory board first cannot

be said to be the implementation of checks and balances because the supervisory board is not

a law enforcement officer because it does not have authority related to pro-Justitia.

From the discussion, it is proven that the process of handling corruption cases will

currently be hampered because there is a complicated process within the KPK. The eradication

of corruption must be done in a fast and silent way, not even extending the bureaucratic chain

let alone until it is intervened by the supervisory board (Muhammad Yusril Yusuf, 2020).

Evidently, from the beginning of 2021 until the first semester of 2021, the KPK only followed

up on 13 cases, including 37 suspects and state losses amounting to Rp. 331 billion Division

of Law and Judicial Monitoring, 2021). Of the target of 60 cases, the percentage of corruption

enforcement performance by the KPK is only 22 percent of the target during semester 1. This

shows that the KPK's performance is in category D or bad Division of Law and Judicial

Monitoring, 2021). Compared to when it was in the first semester of 2018, it is clear that despite

the decrease in the number of cases and suspects even in 2019 there is a large increase in the

value of losses experienced by the state.

Figure 1. Total of Corruption Cases in Indonesia 2017-2021

If the KPK's performance occurred from 2019 to 2021 there was a decrease in the number

of investigations, investigations, prosecutions, and executions of corruption reports (Wibowo,

Rizalqi, & Yani, 2021). In 2018, the number of investigations reached 164 cases, in 2019 –

the year of the KPK law – investigations occurred 145 times and then decreased in the next

two years, namely in 2020 only 91 times and in 2021 (until June 2021) there were 22

investigations. Then in the execution stage in 2018 occurred 113 times, in 2019 there was an

increase to 136 times, in 2020 it happened to 108, and in 2021 there was a drastic decrease to

18 times (Wibowo et al., 2021).

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

823 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

Table 1. KPK’s Data of Cases

Some consider that the decline in KPK performance is due to the revision of the KPK Law

in which there are articles that try to weaken the KPK's performance in combating corruption.

The expressions of the KPK Law that will strengthen the KPK are just nonsense, expressions

such as only being used as masks by the government to cover up its rot.

KPK Independence on the Brink of Collapse

After the revision of the KPK Law, many people have questioned the independence of the

KPK which we have known as an independent institution. Many of the articles contained in the

KPK Law are contrary to the independent status of state institutions such as the KPK. In Law

No. 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, the KPK is a state

institution independent of the influence of any power. However, currently, the KPK is a state

institution in the executive power group that carries out the task of preventing and combating

corruption in accordance with the Law. In terms of staffing, we know KPK employees as

independent employees by having their own recruitment system, namely Indonesia Memanggil

(Prasetia, 2021). However, now KPK employees are converted into state civil servants through

the National Insight Test which reaps polemics.

Then regarding the chairman and members of the supervisory board, the president will

form a selection committee consisting of elements of the central government and elements of

society. This will obviously affect the independence of the KPK in the eyes of the public

because it will involve the central government where they are people who often "deal" with

corruption cases. This happened in the case of Indriyanto Seno Adji who chose to become on

the KPK supervisory board "specially" by being appointed directly by President Joko Widodo.

Indriyanto Seno Adji was elected to the KPK supervisory board replacing the late Artidjo

Alkostar who died while serving last on the KPK Supervisory Board. Zaenur Rohman –

Researcher at UGM Anti-Corruption Study Center – said the values and principles of KPK

independence contained in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) were

harmed due to the appointment of the new KPK Supervisory Board (Jauh Hari Wawan, 2021).

The election of the new KPK Supervisory Board should be conducted by the KPK's internal

institutions so that the credibility of the new Supervisory Board and the independence of the

KPK can be maintained properly.

As a result of being hit by various polemics in the KPK body, making the level of public

confidence in the KPK drop drastically. The survey results from Cyrus Network showed that

public confidence in the KPK reached 80.7 percent far below the National Police which reached

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

824 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

86.2 percent. In the Political Indicators survey, it was found that the level of public confidence

in the KPK was only 65 percent and another 26 percent expressed distrust in the KPK

(Maharani, 2021). According to a survey from the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), the

level of public confidence in the KPK has decreased to 74.3 percent from the original 81.3

percent, even though the KPK is far below other state institutions such as the National Police,

TNI, President, etc. According to Kurnia Ramadhana – ICW Researcher – there are things that

make the level of public confidence in the KPK can decrease, it is the impact of the KPK Law

that causes polemics and also the leadership of Firli Bahuri (Harijanto, 2021). The KPK Law

has an impact on public confidence because, with the passage of the KPK Law, the performance

of KPK employees decreases because the articles contained in the Law affect independence

and hinder corruption eradication efforts carried out by the KPK. Firli Bahuri's leadership is

also alleged to be the reason public confidence in the KPK decreased because of his figure who

has a red record for violating the KPK code of ethics.

Hope that the State is limited to the Shackles of Corruption.

In the 2 years following the revision of the KPK Law, corruption cases in Indonesia have

increased. Examples of cases in the past 2 years are former Minister of Social Affairs, Juliari

P Batubara, as a suspect in the corruption case of the Covid-19 social fund, Former Minister of

Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Edhy Prabowo, as a suspect in a corruption case of alleged

bribery related to the determination of lobster seed export permits, the corruption case of PT

Asuransi Jiwasraya which cost the state Rp. 16,807 trillion, Prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari

suspected of bribery cases of 500,000 US dollars, The corruption case of the Mayor of Cimahi,

Ajay Muhammad Priatna, related to the case of alleged hospital licensing, as well as many

other corruption cases.

With many cases of corruption above the evidence of degradation is related to the

eradication of corruption in Indonesia. We hope that our country will be free from the shackles

of corruption because corruption is one of the grave human rights violations because the impact

of corruption can lead to being denied, discarded, and deprived of its "human dignity."

Therefore, we want institutions that can eradicate corruption independently and transparently

without interference from parties who have personal interests, the revision of the KPK Law is

believed not to eradicate corruption but instead let corruption continue to grow in society.

CONCLUSION

The agreement on the revision of the KPK Law certainly left a great disappointment from

the public to the government of President Joko Widodo. Moreover, the Revision of the KPK

Law is very tattered both from the aspect of the formation procedure, the substance, including

the political impact in the form of public confidence in the president and DPR. It is true that

Perppu is not the only way to revoke or at least correct other problems in the Revision of the

KPK Law. There are other ways such as the preparation of a new KPK Bill with a mechanism

for the formation of laws and judicial review. However, both mechanisms have disadvantages

compared to the Perppu mechanism, the drafting of the Law certainly takes a long time.

Meanwhile, the judicial review discusses the constitutionality of a law and does not necessarily

discuss the revision of the KPK Law as to what the community wants.

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

825 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

As the nature of the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission as an anti-

corruption agency in Indonesia is one of the legacies of the reform era, where its existence is

motivated by the manifestation of public anger towards the behavior of Corruption, Collusion,

and Nepotism (KKN) that mushroomed during the New Order government, as well as a sense

of distrust of the performance of the Police and Prosecutor's Office which at that time was

considered unable to solve and overcome the problem of corruption in Indonesia. The KPK's

17-year work that has recorded many positive trends towards improving the climate of

prevention and eradication of corruption in Indonesia seems to collapse after Law 19/2019 was

enacted and legally enacted on October 17, 2019.

The passage of Law 19/2019 seems to have hurt public expectations of improving the

political direction of corruption eradication while leaving great disappointment with the

commitment to eradicate corruption by the government of President Joko Widodo. After 16

months of running after its ratification, Law 19/2019 should in fact have become an

implementation of the weakening of the KPK in various aspects. Not without evidence, ranging

from formal and material defects to the real impact of KPK performance which is considered

to continue to show a decline, including a significant decrease in the Corruption Perception

Index and the number of OTTs, the rise of corruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, public

confidence in the KPK which is also declining, and a series of other opaque records seem to

show that the KPK is not doing well.

It is an irony when the government and DPR compactly say that Law 19/2019 is present

to strengthen the performance of the KPK. However, the reality is that it actually caused a

significant decrease in performance when compared to the performance of the KPK before the

enactment of Law 19/2019. Various ways are actually wide open to be able to restore the

eradication of corruption, such as judicial review and legislative review, but in fact, both

mechanisms take a long time and are complicated to do, this is proven by the efforts made by

the community, namely by pursuing the judicial review process which stagnated because of the

delay in the discussion. Therefore, it is necessary to take other efforts such as the determination

of Perppu which is relatively fast and is the best solution, because it is essentially the president's

prerogative authority. Moreover, the condition of the compelling crunch has been manifestly

fulfilled to urge the president to establish Perppu.

In fact, the President's opportunity to be able to restore the power of the KPK as before

when it was still wide open until now. The urgency of determining the KPK Perppu has long

been echoed since the beginning of the ratification of Law 19/2019. However, it is unfortunate

that the attitude of President Joko Widodo at that time seemed 'doubtful' about his constitutional

rights and chose to wait for the answer to the material testing of Law 19/2019 through the

judicial review mechanism in the Constitutional Court. In fact, there is no rule and even a ban

for the president to stipulate Perppu, given the very precarious situation that is colored by a

series of Corruption Reform events with a wave of massive demonstrations to reject Law

19/2019 which took five fatalities, even plus seeing a real reflection of the KPK's performance

after the ratification of Law 19/2019 which successfully carved a series of red report cards in

the year of Jokowi's term. Therefore, it is fitting that a series of projections of the real impact

of the weak KPK on the implications of Law 19/2019 can be an afterthought for President Joko

Widodo in establishing Perppu.

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

826 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

REFERENCES

Asyikin, Nehru, & Setiawan, Adam. (2020). Kedudukan KPK Dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan

Pasca Diterbitkannya Revisi Undang-Undang KPK. Justitia Jurnal Hukum, 4(1).

Dirkareshza, Rianda, Azura, Dinda Maurizka, & Pradana, Roni. (2021). Kebijakan Pemerintah

di Masa Pandemi Covid-19: Antara Negara Sejahtera dan Negara Sehat. Jurnal

Mercatoria, 14(1), 46–55.

Divisi Hukum dan Monitoring Peradilan. (2021). Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus

Korupsi Semester 1 Tahun 2021. Jakarta: ICW.

Egeham, Lizsa. (2021). Direktur KPK: Sebagian dari 75 Pegawai Tak Lulus TWK Menangani

Kasus Besar.

Harijanto, Setyo Aji. (2021). ICW: Ungkap 2 Penyebab Merosotnya Kepercayaan Publik

Terhadap KPK.

Hikmah, Neny Fathiyatul. (2020). Keberadaan Dewan Pengawas Terhadap Independensi

Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Perspektif Siyasah Dusturiyah. Al-Balad: Journal of

Constitutional Law, 2(2).

Indrayana, Denny. (2017). Jangan Bunuh KPK. Adamssein Media.

Kamil, Irfan. (2021). ICW: SP3 KPK Bertentangan dengan Putusan MK.

KBBI. (2021). Inkonstitusional.

Komnas HAM. (2021). Hasil Pemantauan dan Penyelidikan Komnas HAM atas Peristiwa

Dugaan Pelanggaran HAM dalam Proses Asesmen Tes Wawasan Kebangsaan Pegawai

KPK Menjadi Aparatur Sipil Negara (ASN).

Madril, Oce. (2020). LAPORAN PENELITIAN PROYEKSI MASA DEPAN

PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI MENELISIK PENGESAHAN REVISI UNDANG-

UNDANG KPK. Jakarta.

Maharani, Tsarina. (2021). Survei Indikator: Tingkat Kepercayaan Publik Terhadap KPK

Merosot, di Bawah TNI, Presiden, dan Polri.

Mata Najwa. (2021). Polemik Pertanyaan TWK KPK, dari Soal Pacar hingga Follow Ustaz.

Prasetia, Andhika. (2021). Tentang Indonesia Memanggil, Cara KPK Rekrut Pegawai

Antikorupsi.

Prasetiyo, Andhika. (2021). Komnas HAM Sebut TWK KPK Melanggar HAM, Minta

Presiden Ambil Alih.

Rachman, Andi Nur. (2021). Urgensi Izin Penyadapan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi

Perspektif Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019. Jakarta: UIN Jakarta.

Romziatussa’adah, R. (n.d.). Pemberantasan Korupsi Perspektif Hukum Pidana Islam. Nurani:

Jurnal Kajian Syariah Dan Masyarakat, 14(1), 119–156.

Rumokoy, Nike K. (2016). Pelanggaran Hukum terhadap Penggunaan Minyak dan Gas Bumi

(Migas) yang Terkandung di dalam Wilayah Hukum Pertambangan Indonesia oleh Pihak

yang Tidak Berwenang oleh: Nike K. Rumokoy. Jurnal Hukum Unsrat, 22(5).

Tauda, Gunawan A. (2011). Kedudukan Komisi Negara Independen dalam Struktur

Ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia. Pranata Hukum, 6(2).

The Law Dictionary. (2021). What is Independence.

Tresna, Nano. (2021). Dewan Pengawas Tidak Dapat Campuri Kewenangan Yudisial KPK.

Brandish Red Report Card: Eliminating Corruption in Indonesia

827 Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 1(7), Apr 2022

Verhoest, Koen, Roness, Paul, Verschuere, Bram, Rubecksen, Kristin, & MacCarthaigh,

Muiris. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies.

Springer.

Wardah, Fathiyah. (2021). Pengawasan Internal di KPK Jauh Lebih Kuat Sebelum Ada Dewan

Pengawas.

Wibowo, Henry Hilmawan, Rizalqi, Dimas Fahmi, & Yani, Sri Husda. (2021). Pengaruh Revisi

Undang-Undang KPK Dalam Kegiatan Pemberantasan Korupsi Di Indonesia. Jurnal

Sosial Sains, 1(8), 943–950.