The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is intensively pursuing additional criminal charges for graft suspects, particularly in a move to revoke their political rights. But what is the legal basis in providing this additional penalty? What’s the track record in the courts when faced with the request to revoke a defendant’s political rights?

Art. 10 letter “b” number “1” of the Criminal Code (KUHP) mentions the revocation of certain rights as an additional form of penalty. These provisions are further described in Art. 35 paragraph (1) of KUHP which states that the rights of convicts can be revoked by ruling. These rights include the right to hold positions in general or a particular position, the right to enter the armed forces, as well as the right to vote and to be elected in elections (political rights).

On said basis, at least since 2003, the KPK has begun to include the revocation of political rights as additional penalty. One high-profile case wherein the revocation of political rights became an issue was the corruption case involving the former chairman of the Democratic Party Anas Urbaningrum.

Anas’ penalty was aggravated by the Supreme Court (MA) in his attempt to file for Cassation. MA also politically disenfranchised Anas even though both the District Court and the High Court had decided to reject the KPK’s requests to revoke Anas’ political rights. What’s interesting about the decision that the Assembly of Cassation, chaired by Justice Artidjo Alkostar, said that District Court and the High Court wrongly weighed the case. Both Courts argued that political rights did not need to be removed because the right to determine whether a person is worthy of holding a public office was the voters’. MA, on the other hand, argued that the public should be protected from problematic politicians. 

MA’s decision was later used as precedent. On June 3, 2016, the Panel of Appeals of the Jakarta High Court aggravated the punishment for the former Minister of Religious Affairs Suryadharma Ali. The Panel decided to revoke Suryadharma’s political rights. A week later, the Panel of the same court rejected the appeal filed by Nasdem’s former Secretary General Patrice Rio Capella and had his political rights revoked. Unfortunately, the Corruption Court of District Courts have not followed on these footsteps. Some examples are:

  • The graft case involving the former Chairman of DPRD Bangkalan Fuad Amin. Jakarta Corruption Court refused to revoke Fuad’s political rights, but on the stage of appeals, the High Court granted the request;
  • The graft case involving the former Riau Governor Rusli Zainal. The Corruption Court rejected the application for the revocation of Rusli Zainal’s political rights. But on stage of cassation, the Supreme Court decided to revoke his political rights;
  • The graft case involving the former President of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq. The Corruption Court only gave prison sentences and fines. On the stage of cassation, however, the penalty for Luthfi was aggravated with the revocation of political rights;
  • The graft case involving the former Banten Governor Ratu Atut Chosiyah. Just like Luthfi, the district court and high court only gave prison sentences and fines for Ratu Atut for bribing the former chairman of the Constitutional Court Akil Mochtar. On the stage of cassation, however, the MA decided to revoke Atut’s political rights.
  • The graft case involving the former member of the House of Representatives from Hanura Dewie Yasin Limpo, who is also the younger sister of the South Sulawesi Governor Syahrul Yasin Limpo (Golkar). On June 13, 2016, Dewie was convicted of accepting bribes. The Panel of Judges sentenced Dewie to 6 years in prison with the obligation to pay a fine of Rp200 million. The judges, however, rejected the KPK’s request to have Dewie’s political rights revoked. The Court argued that the right to elect officials lies in voters’ hands.
  • The graft case involving the West Lombok Regent Zaini Arony. On September 30, 2015, the Corruption Court of the Denpasar District Court sentenced Zaini Arony to 4 years in prison, but the demands of political disenfranchisement was not granted. In March 2016, Zaini’s verdict was aggravated by the High Court of Denpasar to 7 years in prison, but the panel of appeals still refused to revoke Zaini’s political rights.

By Pradnya Paramitha

Copying, redistributing, and retransmitting this article is a violation of copyrights.