Formappi: Talks on Revising the UU Tipikor in Parliament Do Not Affect Ongoing Legal Cases

Forum Masyarakat Peduli Parlemen Indonesia (Formappi) researcher Lucius Karus says the discourse on revising the Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi (UU Tipikor) in the DPR’s Baleg committee emerged after the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, which affirmed the limits of the authority to calculate and determine losses to the state in corruption cases. Karus says the series of Public Hearing Meetings (RDPU) in Baleg has no connection to or power to intervene in corruption cases currently underway in the courts. The Chromebook procurement case involving former Education Minister Nadiem Makarim was cited as an example of a high-profile case under discussion. “I think Baleg cannot intervene in trials or management of ongoing corruption cases. The Chromebook case may be highlighted because it is widely talked about,” Karus said when contacted on Thursday (21/5). Karaus stated that discussions in Parliament are purely part of absorbing public aspirations and enriching legal discourse. As the parliamentary body’s research arm handling legislation, Baleg has an interest in examining MK decisions that affect the harmonisation of laws. “Of course, discussing it does not mean Baleg can influence court proceedings such as the Chromebook case. Therefore the public should not be swept along by information that does not reflect the reality of the court process,” he added. He noted that the proposed revision of UU Tipikor relating to the restructuring of the state-loss calculation body could become a matter for scrutiny by the Attorney General’s Office and the judiciary. However, progress depends on legal considerations, not directives from Baleg. “The next steps depend on Baleg’s and the government’s will to continue deliberation on revising UU Tipikor,” he explained of the legislative process, which remains dynamic. Previously, Baleg Chairman Bob Hasan explained that Parliament invited several legal experts to examine dual interpretations in Indonesia’s corruption penalties regulations. The focus was to align Article 2 and Article 3 of UU Tipikor with Articles 603 and 604 of the National KUHP to avoid field overlap. The urgency of this discussion intensified after the MK decision. The ruling expressly stated that there must be no more inter-pretation disputes about who has the authority to calculate losses. The decision designates BPK as the sole legally empowered body to calculate and determine losses in corruption cases. Although the MK decision was unanimous, Bob Hasan did not deny that enforcement realities still show sectoral egos among officials. He cited a circular from the Attorney General’s Office that is seen as leaving room for other institutions, such as the Financial and Development Auditing Agency (BPKP), to issue certificates of state losses.