Implications of the Constitutional Court's Decision on Corruption Management Politics in Indonesia
Keywords:verdict, constitutional judges, pretrial, corruption
There has been an uncommon phenomenon during the timeline of criminal justice system in Indonesia when it comes to involve the handling of corruption cases. The Corruption Eradication Corruption (KPK) which receives the obligation from the state to eradicate or cope with corruption is frequently sued by suspects through pretrial. Some of the lawsuits filed by the suspect won. The investigator, committed to upholding the authority in eradicating corruption, is committed to continue the investigation by issuing a new Investigative Warrant (Sprindik). The step which is performed by this investigator is definitely protested by the suspect or his legal counsel. Judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK) is then carried out by the suspect. The Constitutional Court has presented a verdict in relation with the presence of pretrial. When observed more thoroughly, this verdict given by the Constitutional Court is substantially related to corruption mitigation.