VZCZCXRO5054
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHJA #3603/01 3620347
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 280347Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2612
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0271
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 1250
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 013603 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EAP/MTS, INL FOR BOULDIN 
DOJ FOR CTS THORNTON, AAG SWARTZ, OPDAT FOR 
ALEXANDRE/LEHMANN/CRAWFORD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/26/2016 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KJUS PCRM KTIA ID
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECLARES ANTI-CORRUPTION 
COURT UNCONSTITUTIONAL 
 
Classified By: Political Officer Adam West for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
 Summary 
----------- 
 
¶1. (U) In a controversial decision, on December 19 the 
Constitutional Court of Indonesia (CC) ruled that the legal 
provision which created the Anti-Corruption Court was 
unconstitutional, but allowed the court to continue 
functioning for a period of three years.  The overturned 
provision was part of the 2002 law which created the 
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).  The decision was 
reportedly based on the Constitutional Court's finding that 
suspects tried for corruption in the Anti-Corruption Court 
were treated differently from suspects facing the same 
charges in the regular court system, thus creating a 
situation of legal uncertainty for the accused.  However, 
press reports indicate the decision allows for the 
Anti-Corruption Court to continue operating for a period of 
three years so that ongoing cases will not be affected. The 
decision sparked a range of reactions from legal experts, 
anti-corruption activists and GOI officials.  USAID is 
forming a task force to assist Parliament and the KPK in 
developing draft legislation to restore the Court's permanent 
status.  Although the KPK appears sanguine about the impact 
of the decision on its ongoing investigations, the decision 
almost certainly represents a setback to the GOI's 
anti-corruption efforts.  End Summary. 
 
The Decision 
---------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The Indonesian Constitutional Court (CC) on December 
19 overturned the legal provision authorizing the creating of 
the Anti-Corruption Court.  The Court was created in 2002 to 
work in tandem with the Corruption Eradication Commission 
(KPK), the GOI's premier anti-corruption body.  Since then, 
the Court has convicted some 14 high profile individuals on 
corruption charges, including one former Provincial Governor 
and a former Cabinet Minister.  The suit was brought by two 
men previously convicted by the Court, who claimed that the 
special court operated by different procedures and handed out 
tougher penalties than the regular court system, thereby 
creating a dual system in which suspects charged with 
violating anti-corruption laws were treated differently 
depending on which court handled their case. The judges on 
the CC reportedly agreed, ruling that the Court was 
unconstitutional, but adding that the Court could continue to 
function for a period of three years to give Parliament time 
to develop a new legislative basis for the Court's existence. 
 
 
¶3. (U) While the media has focused on the issue of the 
Anti-Corruption Court, other aspects of the CC's decision are 
notable.  For one, the CC rejected the plaintiff's call for 
abolishment of the entire KPK.  Additionally, the CC 
reportedly upheld the authority of the KPK to conduct 
wiretapping during its investigations, although the decision 
did call for new regulations to stipulate when and how 
wiretaps can be used.    (The CC has not yet released its 
full written decision.) 
 
The Impact 
-------------- 
 
¶4. (C) The CC's decision has generated strong reactions from 
Indonesian observers.  Rafendi Djamin, Coordinator for the 
anti-corruption NGO Human Rights Working Group, told us that 
the decision will hurt the GOI's anti-corruption efforts and 
speculated that it was based on political rather than legal 
considerations.  (Note: This charge has been leveled against 
a number of recent CC decisions - see septel.)   The decision 
to allow the court three more years of life has also 
generated significant controversy, with some legal experts 
claiming that the CC lacks the authority to extend the life 
of an institution that is found to be unconstitutional.  Some 
prominent observers have called for a Presidential Order 
(Perpu) to re-authorize the court's existence immediately, 
while Djamin and others have called on Parliament to make 
drafting a new law for the court a priority.  The GOI, 
however, does not view the issue with the same urgency.  The 
Yudhoyono administration reportedly has resisted calls for a 
Perpu, stating only that it is studying various options. 
KPK Chairman Taufiqurahman Ruki also publicly rejected the 
need for a Perpu, telling the press that the CC's decision to 
 
JAKARTA 00013603  002 OF 002 
 
 
grant the court three more years is a sufficient legal basis 
for the court to continue operating.  Privately, KPK Deputy 
Chief Amien Sunaryadi told us he is not concerned about the 
decision and is confident that the cases currently being 
prepared by the KPK will continue to be tried in the Court as 
before.  As for the chances of new legislation being enacted 
soon, one member of Parliament told us it was "doubtful" that 
anything would be enacted next year. 
 
¶5. (U) USAID is setting up a task force to assist lawmakers 
and the KPK in developing new draft legislation to restore 
the Court's status on a permanent basis.  The task force will 
operate under the auspices of USAID's Indonesian 
Anti-Corruption and Commercial Court Enhancement project 
(In-ACCE).  The project provides aid to the Anti-Corruption 
Court to improve Court functions in case management, 
financial and budgetary planning, and management of 
information technology and human resources. 
 
¶6. (C) Comment: Although the CC has not yet released a full 
opinion explaining its reasoning, the decision represents a 
setback for SBY's anti-corruption drive.  It will certainly 
add fuel to the internal debate within the GOI between anti- 
corruption advocates like KPK Vice Chairman Erry 
Hardjapamekas and those who, like Vice President Kalla, claim 
the anti- corruption drive is inhibiting the efficient 
functioning of the bureaucracy.  The KPK has achieved some 
momentum with the convictions won to date, and GOI officials 
at all levels are now significantly more aware of the 
potential consequences of corrupt behavior.  KPK officials 
appear confident that they can continue to successfully 
investigate and prosecute cases.   However, a lengthy effort 
in Parliament to create a new legal foundation for the 
Anti-Corruption Court could prove a major distraction to the 
KPK's efforts.  At the very least, the CC's decision adds a 
new layer of complexity to the already highly politicized 
anti-corruption environment. 
HEFFERN