In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

175 10 The rule of law and anti-corruption reforms under Yudhoyono: the rise of the KPK and the Constitutional Court Simon Butt* President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono came to office at a pivotal time for rule-of-law and anti-corruption reforms in Indonesia. The two institutions at the forefront of these reforms were already established by the time he was inaugurated on 20 October 2004, but they had not been operating long and were still finding their feet. The first, the Constitutional Court, was established just one year earlier, on 15 October 2003. The second , the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, KPK), had been working since mid-December 2003. The Jakarta Anti-Corruption Court (Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Tipikor Court), which tried all of the KPK’s defendants, handed down its first decision in March 2005, well after Yudhoyono took office. During Yudhoyono’s presidency, the Constitutional Court and the KPK firmly established themselves within a largely unaccommodating political environment, and then actively and professionally performed their functions, which have been critically important to overall postSuharto reform. As we shall see, both institutions had a relatively slow start during Yudhoyono’s first term, with the KPK choosing to target small fry and the Constitutional Court invalidating unconstitutional legislation. However, as Yudhoyono’s second term commenced, both * The author would like to thank Fritz Edward Siregar for excellent research assistance and the Australian Research Council for funding this research (project DPI095541). Update book 2014-15.indb 175 19/04/2015 11:39 am 176   The Yudhoyono Presidency: Indonesia’s Decade of Stability and Stagnation institutions became perceptibly emboldened. The KPK began to target powerful politicians, while the Constitutional Court adopted more aggressive decision-making practices, such as amending constitutionally questionable legislation rather than simply invalidating it. Although the KPK and the Constitutional Court became very popular with the public, they also faced significant obstacles, put in their path mainly by those whose interests were adversely affected by their work. For example, several KPK commissioners were arrested by police or prosecutors who either were themselves under KPK investigation or appeared to act at the behest of others being investigated. The paucity of evidence to support these arrests led to speculation that the commissioners had been framed. Sections of the national parliament—many members of which had been investigated or prosecuted by the KPK— threatened to cut the commission’s budget and powers, and to reduce the potency of the anti-corruption courts. The Constitutional Court faced two efforts—one through a statute passed in 2011 and the other through a government regulation in lieu of law (peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang, perppu) issued by the president himself in late 2013—to rein it in and to ensure that allegations of judicial misconduct could not be handled internally. The court defended itself from both interventions by invalidating Yudhoyono’s regulation and most of the statute. Even though Yudhoyono came to office and was re-elected on a reformist platform, there is little evidence that he contributed much to the success of either the Constitutional Court or the KPK. He rarely stepped in to defend them when they came into conflict with powerful and resentful political players. When he did act, he usually did so late and under significant public pressure, perhaps when these institutions had already averted the real dangers they faced. Yet, there is also little evidence to suggest that Yudhoyono sought actively to undermine or weaken them, even when the KPK successfully prosecuted senior members of his own Democrat Party (Partai Demokrat, PD) and a member of his extended family for corruption. Neither did Yudhoyono retaliate, at least publicly, when the Constitutional Court invalidated the perppu he issued in late 2013. There is also very little to suggest that Yudhoyono interfered in any Constitutional Court decision. As with many other challenges facing his administration, particularly in its second term, Yudhoyono appeared to adopt a hands-off approach, allowing legal and anti-corruption reforms and controversies to be handled by others. While he faced significant criticism for doing so, as president , it was in fact his constitutional and statutory duty to refrain from interference, either to help or to hinder these institutions. Overall, his reticence created an environment in which both institutions could thrive, significantly enhancing rule-of-law and anti-corruption efforts in the country. Update book 2014-15.indb 176 19/04/2015 11:39 am The rule of law and anti-corruption reforms under Yudhoyono   177 This...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.