Syahputra, Munawar (2025) Implikasi Perubahan Kewenangan Penyadapan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Terhadap Independensi Lembaga Setelah Berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text skripsi_231022102_watermark.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The amendment of Law Number 30 of 2002 to Law Number 19 of 2019, concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, has had significant consequences for the institutional design of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The new provision that requires written permission from the Board of Supervisors for wiretapping, searches, and confiscations has sparked academic and practical debate, as it is seen as reducing the institution's effectiveness and independence in carrying out law enforcement functions. This issue reflects a shift in the political direction of corruption eradication laws from a model of complete independence to a more structurally strict supervision model. This research employs a normative juridical approach by examining primary and secondary legal materials, including laws, Constitutional Court Decisions, and academic literature on the KPK institution. The analysis was conducted in a descriptive-analytical manner to examine how regulatory shifts affect institutions' operational independence and internal oversight mechanisms. This approach aims to identify the problem of how the KPK's eavesdropping authority is regulated before and after Law No. 19 of 2019, and the impact of Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019 on the position and function of the Supervisory Board. The results of the study show that, before the change, the KPK had the authority to eavesdrop, which was independent and carried out directly by the institution's leadership. However, after the law was revised, this authority became dependent on written permission from the Board of Trustees. Through the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 70/PUU-XVII/2019, the Court reinterpreted the phrase "permit" to "notice", with the aim that supervision by the Supervisory Board is administrative and does not hinder the action of investigation or investigation. This interpretation restores part of the KPK's spirit of independence, as stipulated in Law Number 30 of 2002. The conclusion of this study confirms that Law Number 19 of 2019 changed the authority to eavesdrop on the KPK from being previously free of license (as per Law 30/2002) to requiring mandatory permission from the Supervisory Board, thereby limiting the operational flexibility of the KPK and potentially creating bureaucratic obstacles. However, Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019 then limited the role of the Supervisory Board to the administrative aspect, reinterpreting the permit obligation as limited to notification. With this correction, the Constitutional Court restored the independence of the KPK to a more proportionate level, so that the Supervisory Board no longer has the substantive authority to intervene in pro justitia actions. It is recommended to the Government and the House of Representatives to ensure that the eavesdropping permit mechanism in Law Number 19 of 2019 does not weaken the effectiveness of the KPK through data-based evaluation and limited revision possibilities, including emergency eavesdropping with ex post approval. The government and the House of Representatives must also follow up on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUUXVII/2019 by harmonising regulations so that the Dewas permit is truly administrative and does not open up room for substantive intervention.

Actions (login required)

View Item