The decision of the Supreme Court to revoke the legal requirements is considered a setback in efforts to eradicate corruption. Read more.
November 3rd, 2021 09:00
GenPI.co – Impartial Researcher Hussein Ahmad raises his voice about The Supreme Court which revoked The Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012 regarding the Terms and Procedures for the Implementation of the Rights of Correctional Inmates.
As is known, the abolition of Government Regulation No. 99 of 2012 allows inmates of extraordinary cases such as corruption to get remission or a reduction in their sentence, without having to meet the requirements of two articles, namely Article 34 A and 43 A.
"This is actually a setback in efforts to eradicate corruption," he told GenPI.co, Wednesday (3/11)
Not only that, he also assessed that the steps taken by the Supreme Court were very beneficial for the robbers of people's money.
"With the Supreme Court's decision, it is easier for corrupt convicts to get a reduced sentence," he said.
He then assessed that the decision was far from the expectations of the community in eradicating corruption in the country.
“Instead of tightening the rules for reducing sentences, this decision has made it easier. It is not in line with the commitment to eradicate corruption," he said.
On the other hand, Centra Initiative researcher Erwin Natosmal Oemar assessed that there was a serious problem with the judicial review process at this Supreme Court.
In fact, he also said that the process carried out by the Supreme Court was not transparent and unaccountable.
This is because the decision seems arbitrary because the Indonesian people do not know anything about the decision that was immediately knocked down.
"The public only gets a decision at the end without knowing what the legal considerations are," he continued.
Therefore, he appealed to the public to immediately urge the legislature to place limits on the Supreme Court in making decisions.
"It's time for the public to ask the Indonesian Board of Citizen Representatives (DPR) to amend the Supreme Court Decree as soon as possible, so that important decisions that are contrary to the public interest at large do not repeat themselves," said Erwin. (*)