THE NATURE OF THE USE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RIGHT TO INQUIRE AGAINST THE CORRUPTION ERADICATION COMMISSION IN THE INDONESIAN STATE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM
Abstrak
This study aims: (1). analyse and explain the DPR's inquiry rights in the Indonesian constitutional system; (2).
analyse and explain the use of the DPR's Inquiry Rights against the Corruption Eradication Committee as an
instrument of supervision; (3). analyse and explain the institutional position of the KPK in the Indonesian state
administration structure. This research was conducted using doctrinal, normative legal research methods or
library legal research, namely legal research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data
consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. These materials are
arranged systematically and studied; then, a conclusion is drawn in relation to the problem under study. The
results of this study: (1). The DPR's Inquiry Rights, functions and authorities are regulated in Article 20A of the
1945 Constitution that, in carrying out its functions, in addition to the rights regulated in other articles of this
Constitution, the DPR has the right of interpellation, the right of inquiry, and the right to express opinions, the
authors conclude that the DPR after the amendment to the KPK law, the DPR can exercise the right of inquiry
against the KPK; (2). The Use of the DPR's Inquiry Right Against the Corruption Eradication Commission is an
instrument of DPR supervision over the KPK which implements the law as a state institution, but not in the law
enforcement process as research results show that even though the KPK has been emphasized in the law as an
institution that belongs to the executive family, this does not mean that it can be questioned by the KPK. DPR
without having a fundamental reason; (3). The position of the KPK is a state institution that is independent; on
the other hand, based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 that the KPK is part of the
executive power family. Based on this decision, Law No. 30 of 2002 was revised into Law no. 19 of 2019
concerning the KPK. In the changes to the KPK Law, the KPK is positioned as an executive power institution.
Suggestions for this research: (1). The urgency of improving the regulatory framework regarding the framework
for implementing the DPR's inquiry rights in the Indonesian constitutional system so that the DPR in exercising
its inquiry rights to an independent state institution does not touch authority that could undermine the
independence of an institution; (2). The need to re-arrange the DPR's Inquiry Rights, one of which is the merger
of laws related to the DPR's inquiry rights to minimise clashes with inquiry norms, given the many state
institutions that have sprung up, which aim to maximise deficiencies and become a constitutional need for
Indonesia; (3). The importance of restructuring and revitalising the commissions of independent state
institutions, in this case, one of which is the Corruption Eradication Committee, among others, is to make it a
constitutional organ through the 5th Amendment to the 1945 Constitution. Ideally, all independent state
commissions are strictly regulated in the constitution, including regarding institutional status.
analyse and explain the use of the DPR's Inquiry Rights against the Corruption Eradication Committee as an
instrument of supervision; (3). analyse and explain the institutional position of the KPK in the Indonesian state
administration structure. This research was conducted using doctrinal, normative legal research methods or
library legal research, namely legal research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data
consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. These materials are
arranged systematically and studied; then, a conclusion is drawn in relation to the problem under study. The
results of this study: (1). The DPR's Inquiry Rights, functions and authorities are regulated in Article 20A of the
1945 Constitution that, in carrying out its functions, in addition to the rights regulated in other articles of this
Constitution, the DPR has the right of interpellation, the right of inquiry, and the right to express opinions, the
authors conclude that the DPR after the amendment to the KPK law, the DPR can exercise the right of inquiry
against the KPK; (2). The Use of the DPR's Inquiry Right Against the Corruption Eradication Commission is an
instrument of DPR supervision over the KPK which implements the law as a state institution, but not in the law
enforcement process as research results show that even though the KPK has been emphasized in the law as an
institution that belongs to the executive family, this does not mean that it can be questioned by the KPK. DPR
without having a fundamental reason; (3). The position of the KPK is a state institution that is independent; on
the other hand, based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 that the KPK is part of the
executive power family. Based on this decision, Law No. 30 of 2002 was revised into Law no. 19 of 2019
concerning the KPK. In the changes to the KPK Law, the KPK is positioned as an executive power institution.
Suggestions for this research: (1). The urgency of improving the regulatory framework regarding the framework
for implementing the DPR's inquiry rights in the Indonesian constitutional system so that the DPR in exercising
its inquiry rights to an independent state institution does not touch authority that could undermine the
independence of an institution; (2). The need to re-arrange the DPR's Inquiry Rights, one of which is the merger
of laws related to the DPR's inquiry rights to minimise clashes with inquiry norms, given the many state
institutions that have sprung up, which aim to maximise deficiencies and become a constitutional need for
Indonesia; (3). The importance of restructuring and revitalising the commissions of independent state
institutions, in this case, one of which is the Corruption Eradication Committee, among others, is to make it a
constitutional organ through the 5th Amendment to the 1945 Constitution. Ideally, all independent state
commissions are strictly regulated in the constitution, including regarding institutional status.