MK CHIEF : PERPPU'S PURPOSE TO SAVE KPK

Jakarta, Sept 22 (ANTARA) - Constitutional Court (MK) Chairman Mahfud MD said the issuance of a government regulation in lieu of law to change the law on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was necessary to save the KPK.

"I am one of those who believe it is necessary to save the KPK as without the appointment of acting officials (to fill the vacancies) KPK could be incapacitated and the validity of its decisions could be questioned because of a lack of quorum," he told ANTARA on Tuesday.

Cabinet Secretary Sudi Silalahi had earlier said the government was now formulating a draft presidential decision to name interim KPK leaders to replace those who had been suspended following their alleged involvement in criminal cases.

Three KPK officials who have been suspended are Antasari Azhar who is allegedly involved in a murder case, Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra Hamzah in connection with alleged power abuse.

Mahfud said with only two leaders left to run the KPK it was feared the legitimacy of its decisions would be questioned later.

"Indeed the quorum requirement could still be argued but it is this argument that could become a problem. So both the pros and cons have the common will to save the KPK," he said.

He said people must not be worried about the MK's stance towards the Perppu because the Perppu could not be disputed through the MK for any reason.

He said a Perppu could only be changed by the House of Representatives (DPR) through a political review. "If a Perppu is rejected by the DPR we already have Law Number 10 of 2004 to deal with it. If it is approved by the House, it means the decision is legallly and politically correct," he said.

"If it is to be reviewed by the MK there is also Law Number 23 of 2003 that would deal with its legal consequences. In short, legal avenues are always available," he said.

Mahfud said the reasons used for issuing the Perppu were also legitimate because the 1945 Constitution allows issuance of emergency laws namely Article 12 on emergency situations and Article 22 on critical situations.

He said an emergency situation had to be determined upon objective reasons or laws while a critical situation could be determined based on the personal view of the president." ***4***