Johanis Tanak: DPR Tatib Contradicts KPK Law, Vulnerable to being Sued to the Supreme Court

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission or KPK responded to the results of the revision of the DPR Regulation on Rules of Procedure or Tatib DPR, which allows members of parliament to evaluate the state officials they have chosen, and even recommend their dismissal. The Tatib DPR is considered to be in conflict with the KPK Law, making it vulnerable to being challenged in the Supreme Court.

The Deputy Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Johanis Tanak, through a written statement on Thursday (6/2/2025), said that from the perspective of constitutional law, particularly when referring to Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislation, the regulations of the House of Representatives (DPR) are under the law. In the context of the KPK, it is under Law No. 19/2019 concerning the KPK.

Based on that, the appointment or dismissal of KPK leaders is entirely subject to the articles contained in Law No. 19/2019, not following what is stated in the revised DPR regulations.

In fact, according to him, the revised DPR regulation material that conflicts with the KPK Law could be a loophole to sue the regulation to the Supreme Court. "According to Law No. 12/2011, DPR regulations are below the Law, so if there is a party who feels that their interests are harmed by DPR regulations, the person concerned can file a judicial review to the Supreme Court," he said.

Furthermore, according to Tanak, from the perspective of state administrative law, a dismissal decree for an official can only be issued by the official from the institution that appointed the said official.

In the context of the KPK leadership, it is the President who appoints them. Therefore, dismissal can only be done by the President. This must also refer back to the KPK Law, which regulates the conditions for the dismissal of KPK leaders.

Apart from that, the option to dismiss other state officials is only through the State Administrative Court (PTUN). Dismissal can be imposed if the appointment decree is declared null or invalid by a PTUN decision based on a lawsuit from a party who feels their interests are harmed, as regulated in Law No. 5/1986 concerning State Administrative Court.

On Tuesday (February 4, 2025), the DPR passed a revision of the DPR Regulation on DPR Rules of Procedure, which among other things, added one article, namely Article 228A.

The article states, in order to improve the supervisory function and maintain the honor of the DPR regarding the results of the commission's discussions, the DPR can conduct periodic evaluations of candidates who have been determined in the DPR plenary meeting. The results of the evaluation are binding and are submitted by the commission conducting the evaluation to the DPR leadership for follow-up in accordance with the applicable mechanism.

Separately, the Head of the Constitutional Law Study Program at the Faculty of Sharia and Law, UIN Sunan Kalijaga, Gugun El Guyanie, believes that the DPR has misunderstood its oversight function.

The meaning of supervision referred to in the revision of the DPR Tatib is very much at odds with the principle of distribution of power and checks and balances.

According to him, the supervisory function in the concept of trias politica is the mecca of the state system in this republic. This function must be integrated with the legislative and budgeting functions. "It does not mean that the DPR can fire officials in the MK, MA, KPU, KPK. If that is what is meant by supervision, then the DPR can damage the principle of checks and balances," he said.

In modern democracy, there is no higher primary constitutional branch or organ, all are equal. Moreover, the judicial branch of power, such as the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, must be independent and impartial.

If the DPR can intervene in this branch of power, for example by the DPR dismissing a judge, then this can damage the judicial power. While the KPU, Bawaslu, and Judicial Commission are state independence agencies or independent state institutions that are also equal to the DPR, the executive, and the judiciary.

"With the new, absurd rules of procedure, the DPR has contributed to damaging the institutional arrangements of the state that have been consolidated post-reformation. The DPR must not have the desire to be present as a legislative heavy institution. In my opinion, immediately revoke the DPR Rules of Procedure, and the one who revokes them must be the DPR itself," he said.