Position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Supervisory Board in Supervising the Duties and Authorities of the KPK Based on Law Number 19 of 2019

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out and analyze the position of the KPK Supervisory Board based on Law Number 19 of 2019 and to discuss the authority of the Supervisory Board regarding the granting of wiretapping, search and confiscation permits for the KPK's performance in eradicating corruption in Indonesia. The problems of this thesis are, first, what is the position of the KPK Supervisory Board based on Law Number 19 of 2019. Second, is the authority of the Supervisory Board related to issuing permits or not issuing permits in carrying out wiretapping, searches, and confiscations can realize or support the KPK's performance in eradicating corruption? corruption in Indonesia. The normative juridical research method is to examine laws and regulations related to the problems studied, especially those related to the Supervisory Board which is part of the KPK's organ structure. The research approach used is statutory approach, conceptual approach, historical approach, and case approach. The research results obtained based on analysis and discussion are that when looking at the arrangements in Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the institutional structure of the KPK and the relationship between the authority of the KPK Supervisory Board and other organs, especially the KPK Leaders and Employees, the position of the Supervisory Board is high from the KPK Leaders and KPK Employees . The Supervisory Board has a very dominant role, even exceeding the KPK leadership, as in the matter of granting permits to accountability, it must go through the Supervisory Board proposed by the leadership. Second, the authority of the KPK Supervisory Board regarding issuing permits or not granting wiretapping, search and confiscation permits has not materialized the KPK's performance in eradicating corruption in Indonesia. This is because the licensing authority possessed by the Supervisory Board is actually a pro justitia authority owned by the judiciary, this can be seen based on the Criminal Code (KUHAP) and Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights. There is a requirement for prior permission from the KPK Supervisory Board regarding wiretapping, searches and confiscations as it is known that eradicating corruption requires very fast, accurate, effective and efficient moves. If waiting for a permit will potentially take time, some potential suspects will run away and lose new evidence. Based on the results of this study the authors provide recommendations. The position of the KPK Supervisory Board is correct, it's just that the KPK leadership does not have to ask for permission and is given permission by the KPK Supervisory Board in the wiretapping, search and confiscation process so that the KPK Supervisory Board does not get involved in KPK technical issues.