Former Investigator: Constitutional Court ruling on obstruction of justice is correct

Jakarta – Former investigator of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Yudi Purnomo Harahap, said the Constitutional Court’s (MK) ruling to change the wording of the provision on obstruction of justice (OOJ) was correct for legal certainty and to prevent the provision from being misused to criminalise law enforcement. He added that there is no problem with the Court removing the phrases “directly or indirectly”, because in practice it has been the use of elements other than direct or indirect that have been used by investigators when there are attempts to obstruct investigations under the elements of Article 21.

The member of the Police’s Task Force for Eradicating Corruption Crimes (Kortas Tipikor) said that the acts punished were real acts and directly related to the corruption case, and that attempts to obstruct had already reached final decision. “So going forward, investigators will be more careful when raising cases of attempted obstruction of investigations,” he said.

He added that this caution requires strong evidence that there has been an attempt to hinder, prevent or derail the investigation, which must be reflected in the prosecutorial and court examinations.

“That is what constitutes the delict that meets all the elements of Article 21,” he said. The MK ruling is appropriate, he argued, because it does not repeal all provisions. If it did repeal all, that would present problems. In other words, the Court’s ruling also acknowledges the authority of investigators or law enforcers: when carrying out their duties (police investigations), prosecutorial reviews (by prosecutors), and court examinations (by judges), no one may obstruct the process outside official channels such as praperadilan (pre-trial procedures) or challenging in ordinary courts and others. “So the ruling is correct.”

Previously, MK changed the text of obstruction of justice in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Offences to prevent misreading.

In decision No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, MK stated that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law contradicted the constitution and has no binding legal effect.