Conceptual Ideal Supervision of the Corruption Eradication Commission in Eradicating Corruption Crimes

One law enforcement agency that has the authority to carry out full supervision and investigation of corruption cases is the Corruption Eradication Commission. Article 50, paragraph (1) is problematic where the arrangement is incomplete and seems unclear. There is also a problem in the implementation of article 50, paragraph (3) concerning the phrase ‘The police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct a full investigation’. Article 50, paragraph (1) of Law No 30/2002 on the Commission for the Eradication of Corruption Crime (‘KPK Law’) provides that ‘in the event that a corruption crime occurs and the Corruption Eradication Commission has not conducted a full investigation, while the case has been fully investigated by the police or the prosecutor's office’. Article 10, paragraph (2) of Law No 19/2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No 30/2002 on the Commission for the Eradication of Corruption Crime (‘Law No 19/2019 on the Second Amendment to the KPK Law’) causes a problem because the provisions on the implementation of supervision duties should be regulated in the form of government regulations by referring to an adherence to the principle.


Introduction
National development aims to realise all Indonesian people who are just, safe, prosperous, and orderly in accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia's ('1945 Constitution') efforts to prevent and eradicate criminal acts in general and corruption in particular. Amid national development efforts in various fields, people's aspirations to eradicate corruption and other crimes are increasing. The existence of corruption has caused enormous losses to the State, which in turn could impact the emergence of crises in various fields. Therefore, efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption need to be renewed and intensified YURIDIKA while still upholding human rights and the interests of the community. Prevention and eradication of corruption is a government concern in almost every developed country because corruption is increasingly widespread.
One law enforcement agency that has the authority to carry out full supervision and investigation of corruption cases is the Corruption Eradication Commission. In the explanation to Law No 19/2019 on the Second Amendment to the KPK Law, the performance of the Corruption Eradication Commission is described as ineffective, the coordination between law enforcement lines is considered weak, the code of ethics has been violated by the leaders and staff of the Corruption Eradication Commission, and the implementation of duties and authorities has problems. The law was revised so that the prevention and eradication of corruption crimes run effectively and are integrated to prevent and reduce the growing State losses due to corruption.  (1) In carrying out the duties of supervision as referred to in Article 6 letter d, the Corruption Eradication Commission is authorised to conduct supervision, research, or review of the agencies that carry out their duties and authorities related to the Eradication of Corruption crimes.

The Corruption Eradication
(2) Provisions regarding the implementation of supervision duties as referred to in paragraph (1) are regulated by the Presidential Regulation.  the legal system. 8 Some experts who have defined legal principles include: 9 1. Paton stated that legal principles would never lose their power just because they have established legal rules or regulations. Instead, legal principles will remain and continue to establish rules and regulations.
2. Satjipto Rahardjo wrote that legal principles contain ethical values and demands.
3. Van Eikema Hommes stated that legal principles should not be regarded as concrete legal norms but as the foundations of law or guidelines for applicable law. Therefore, the establishment of law needs to be oriented to legal principles. In other words,

Construction of Article 26 of the KPK Law
Article 26 of the KPK Law regulates the composition of the Corruption Eradication Commission, which oversees four departments: prevention, enforcement, information and data, and internal supervision and public complaints. Internal Control has been removed from the structure, this certainly raises significant problems from the regulatory side.
Overhauling the internal structure in a way that contradicts the law and its effectiveness will also lead to fundamental problems.

Construction of Article 50 of the KPK Law
The re-emergence of news about corruption cases in the central and regional mass media seems to have originated from the weak sanctions imposed by the judicial body against the corrupt. Since 1957, efforts have been made to eradicate corruptors by drafting and enacting regulations that are then revised for refinement.
However, the results have not yet reached the target -and corruption continues. 12 The eradication of corruption is associated with the trends of corruption crimes in Indonesia, which continue to increase. Indonesia is ranked the second-most corrupt country in Asia and the sixth in the world. 13 Law enforcement is one of the efforts to create order, security and peace in society, whether as a preventive effort or eradication or enforcement after the violation of the law. In other words, law enforcement is preventive and repressive. agencies are not in accordance with the basic philosophy of the State and the outlook on life of the nation, it is inevitable that law enforcement will not reach the target. Therefore, it is necessary to have other regulations in addition to criminal law to maintain the order and security of the State. The perpetrator can only be brought before the court through particular procedures regulated by separate regulations. 14 Article 50 of the KPK Law regulates one form of coordination and supervision of the KPK as follows: (1) In the event that corruption crimes occur and the Corruption Eradication Commission has not conducted a full investigation, while the case has been fully investigated by the police or the prosecutor's office, the agency is obliged to notify the Corruption Eradication Commission no later than 14 (fourteen) working days from the date of commencement of the full investigation.
(2) The full investigation conducted by the police or the prosecutor's office as referred to in paragraph (1) must be coordinated continuously with the Corruption Eradication Commission. (3) In the event that the Corruption Eradication Commission has begun to conduct a full investigation as referred to in paragraph (1), the police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct the full investigation. (4) In the event that the full investigation is conducted simultaneously by the police and/or prosecutor's office and the Corruption Eradication Commission, the full investigation conducted by the police or the prosecutor's office is immediately terminated.
Article 50, paragraph (1) has a problem where the arrangement is incomplete and seems unclear. What if the police or the prosecutor's office does not deliver the

Notification of the Commencement of an Investigation (SPDP) to the Corruption
Eradication Commission no later than 14 working days from the date of commencement of the investigation?.
A problem is also found in the implementation of article 50, paragraph (3) concerning the phrase 'The police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct a full investigation'. The provision raises legal uncertainty as occurred in a double full investigation on the corruption case of SIM Simulator procurement in the Traffic Corps (Korlantas) Police Headquarters.
For more details, the author will first describe the formulation and interpretation of corruption in Indonesia. In Black's Law Dictionary, 'corruption' is defined as an act done with an intention to obtain some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It is the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. of the investigation'. Based on this regulation, the regulation is incomplete and seems unclear. Therefore, it is necessary to add a paragraph to article 50 providing that 'if the police or the prosecutor's office does not deliver the Notification of the Commencement of an Investigation (SPDP) to the Corruption Eradication Commission no later than 14 (fourteen) working days from the date of commencement of the full investigation, then the Corruption Eradication can exercise their authority to do supervision, so the corruption cases can be handled by implementing the principle of Contante Justitie, which directly has efficiency both in terms of time and financial and does not burden the State's finance.

Conclusions
The conclusion that can be drawn from the three main problems in this research is that article 10, paragraph (2)  Article 50, paragraph (1) of the KPK Law provides that 'in the event that a corruption crime occurs and the Corruption Eradication Commission has not conducted a full investigation, while the case has been fully investigated by the police or the prosecutor's office, the agency shall notify the Corruption Eradication Commission no later than 14 (fourteen) working days from the date of commencement of the investigation'. Based on this regulation, the regulation is incomplete and seems unclear. So, it is necessary to add one paragraph to article 50, 'if the police or the prosecutor's office does not deliver the letter of Notification of the Commencement of an Investigation (SPDP) to the Corruption Eradication Commission no later than 14 (fourteen) working days from the date of commencement of the full investigation, then the Corruption Eradication can exercise their authority to do the supervision, so the corruption cases can be handled by implementing the principle of Contante Justitie, which directly has efficiency both in terms of time and financial and does not burden the state finances. In addition, article 50, paragraph (3) of the KPK Law stipulates that 'in the event that the Corruption Eradication Commission has begun to conduct an investigation as referred to in paragraph (1), the police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct an investigation'. The provision in article 50, paragraph (3) that 'The police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct a full investigation' raises legal uncertainty as occurred in a double full investigation on the corruption case of SIM Simulator procurement in the Traffic Corps (Korlantas) at the Police Headquarters. This phrase is contrary to article 1, paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. The phrase 'the police or the prosecutor's office is no longer authorised to conduct a full investigation' should be interpreted as 'the authority of the police or the prosecutor's office to conduct a full investigation in the case'.
Based on the conclusion that answers the existing problems, the author recommends three reforms as follows: 1. Article 10, paragraph (2)