Redesigning the Authority Prismatic Law in the Redesign of Institu- tional Corruption Eradication

183 as an existing institution. The presence of the Indonesian National Police as an instrument of the state is also important in a secured structure of the criminal justice system by taking into account the existence of KPK’s intention and its law as lex specialis. On the other hand, the Police have a duty and an important function not only in law enforcement, but also in terms of protection and community service. For that, we believe mapping of authority should be conducted to the extent that the police has a right to investigate cases of corruption. Substantive aspects are the attribution of authority which is clearly divided in proportion to the existence and purpose of KPK as lex specialis and the trigger mechanism in ighting corruption without negating the vital role of the Police as the frontline of law enforcement in Indonesia. Substantive approach should be embodied in the authority of KPK as outlined in the legislation setting. Authorities to investigate and prosecute should be maintained to be an integral part of KPK since its function as an institution that requires quick response and breakthrough compared to the authority vested in conventional law enforcement agencies, such as the police and prosecutor. The absence of the possibility of issuance of Letter of Termination of Investigation Surat Perintah Penghentian Penyidikan; SP-3 and Letter of Termination of Prosecution Surat Keterangan Penghentian Penuntutan; SKPP is also very im- portant to maintain the trust to KPK in handling cases. Authority to intercept without court order is also relevant. Development of legal culture is also im- perative in order to raise the awareness and morale of state apparatus, so that harmony can be maintained. Systems approach is used to minimise the factors that cause deviations in the process of law enforcement, namely greediness, opportunities, needs, and exposures. 27 The reform will especially aimed at the KPK, simply because the KPK is an institution speciically designed from the beginning to eradicate corruption. Institutional redesign can be attempted in at least two aspects: a redesigning the authority, and b redesigning the organisation.

a. Redesigning the Authority

Police and KPK are both law enforcement agencies. The scope of the Police’s functions is wider: i.e., in addition to the pro justicia, the police also has the function of maintaining security and public order, enforcing the law, protecting, and providing service to the community. In manifesting its pro justicia function, the police posses the authority to enforce law, which cover all criminal offenses: both general and speciic, whereas the KPK is a specialised institution speciically established to combat corruption. It is observed, that the conlict between the Indonesian police and KPK, is actually an excess of the design dualism of authority in Indonesia. This problem is apparent in the In- donesian Act No. 30 of 2002 on the establish- ment of the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, where there exists an absence of a clear boundary between the authority of the Indonesian police and the authority of KPK. Such problems can be seen in Article 11 of the Act, which provides that: In performing its tasks as outlined in Arti- cle 6 c, the KPK is authorized to conduct inquiries, investigations, and prosecutions against corruption cases that: a. Involve law enforcement oficers, go­ vernment executives, or other parties connected to corrupt acts committed by law enforcement oficers or government executives; b. Have attracted the attention and dismay of the general public; andor c. Involves a loss to the State of at least Rp 1,000,000,000 one billion Rupiah. 28 27 Kemitraan bagi Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan di Indonesia, 2004, Indonesian Police dan KKN, Kemitraan, Jakarta, p. 11. 28 Article 11 of Act No. 30 of 2002. MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 25, Nomor 1, Februari 2013, Halaman 184 The article above does not explicitly limit the authority of KPK. The a contrario understanding of the Article 11 of the KPK Act provides the possibility for KPK to conduct an investigation towards the same case the Indonesian police is already working on. The existence of such provisions then implicates the authority of the KPK to take over investigations which are already handled by other agencies and institutions. Thus it is apparent that such norms could result in seizure of authority and overlap in the law enforcement process. It can also be seen the authority that KPK possesses as encumbered in Article 11 of the Law on KPK, is of a cumulative-alternative character. This should be changed to pure cumulative so as to reinforce the authority of KPK as lex specialis and avoid redundancy of authority to investigate in corruption cases.

b. Redesigning the Organization