invites various experts and also agencies moving in the field of law to obtain various inputs in order to make improvements in the Draft Law, including among them from KPKPN itself;

That the House of Representatives The People denied the statement of the applicant stating the Law No. 30 of 2002 could not abolish the function, duties, and authority of the KPKPN as formulated in Law No. 28 of 1999, because it is the opinion of the law. excessive and disproportionate;

That the Basic Law does not provide the constitutional right to the applicant to have an institution or a legal entity that is KPKPN. The owner of the KPKPN institution is not individual, but the state as well as the giver, function and authority in the framework of corruption prevention;

That Section 12 paragraph (1) of the letter a Act No. 30 of 2002 does not conflict with Article 28D and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the Basic Law. Article 12 of the paragraph (1) of the letter: " In carrying out the task of inquiry, investigation, and prosecution as referred to in Article 16 of the letter of the Eradication Commission of the Corruption Corruption Authorities conduct the wiretapping and recording of the talks. " Article 28D paragraph (1) reads: " Every person is entitled to the recognition, assurance, protection, and certainty of fair law and equal treatment before the law ". Article 28G verse (1) reads: " Every person is entitled to personal protection, family, honor, dignity, and property that is under his power and entitled to a sense of safety and protection from the fear of doing or not doing something that is right. basic ";

That such rights in the Basic Law is not absolute but there are restrictions as formulated in Article 28J paragraph (1) that reads:" Every person is obliged to respect the human rights of others in an orderly, nation, and country life order. " and verse (2) " In exercising his rights and freedom, each person is mandatory subject to the restrictions set forth by law with the intent solely to warrant recognition and respect for the rights and liberties of others and to meet the demands of the the fair in accordance with moral considerations, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society ";

That with regard to the provisions in Article 28J it is clear that fundamental rights can be limited to Act. The soul of Article 12 paragraph (1) Act No. 30 of 2002 is in line with Article 28J of the Basic Law and is so overstated if the Petitioner states that it will be able to interfere with the sense of security, family honor, dignity, and property. any society;

That the tapping and recording of one's talk is limited, not to each person, unless the person is suspected of committing an act of criminal corruption. Wiretapping and recording talks solely in relation to the process of inquiry, investigation and prosecution;

That Article 40 of the Law No. 30 Year 2002 does not conflict with Article 28D and Article 28G of the State Basic Law Indonesia in 1945, since Article 40 a quo governs that the KPK does not have the right to a termination of the investigation. Law No. 30 of 2002 gave the KPK the authority to conduct investigations, investigation, and prosecution, but did not provide the authority of the termination of the investigation and prosecution. That does not mean harm to the constitutional rights of the citizens;

That a person who is suspected of committing a criminal corruption, to him remains the presumption of innocence and if the person who is alleged to be in the process of doing so is not guilty of any kind. The investigation and prosecution is not enough evidence for him to keep the laws of the penal code, which is, the matter is not proceeding. So it is not appropriate to say that Article 40 would be able to harm the constitutional rights of the citizens, as the Law No. 30 of 2002 retained the Law of the Criminal Event as set out in Law No. 8 of 1981 and The Law of the Criminal Event as set in Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001;

weighed that in order to strengthen his request, the petitioners have submitted the evidence. The letter, which was given the Proof of P-1 to the P-6, is as follows:

1. Proof of P-1: Legal Opinion (Legal Opinion) of Prof. Dr. Muladi, SH, (coffee photo);

2. Evidence P-2: List of Inventory Inventory of Problems (DIM) Act of the Republic of Indonesia on the Commission for Eradication Of Corruption Crimes of the DPR-RI, (coffee photo);

3. Proof of P-3: Documents of the Bill concerning the Corruption Criminal Eradication Commission of the House of Representatives Development Party-RI, (coffee photo);

4. Evidence P-4: Journal of Justice Journal Vol. 3 No. 1 Year 2003, (original);

5. Evidence P-5: The written testimony of H. Sayuti Rahwarin, Deputy Chairman of the United States Daulatul Ummah DPR-RI, (photo of coffee);

6. Proof P-6: Associated Press (Clippings) It's about the State Organizing Wealth Commission (KPKPN), (photo of coffee).

A draw that aside from submitting the evidence the petitioners have also submitted two (two) experts, that is:

1. Prof. Dr. Muladi, SH, has given the description under oath in accordance with his expertise, which in his potions is the following:

− That the existence of Law No. 28 of 1999, and the Number 30 Act on the Commission of Eradication of Tindak Criminal Corruption, not free from the reform movement in May 1998 that we all experience something very dramatic;

− That according to its nature, what it calls a reform movement or reform movement is a systematic efforts of the entire Indonesian nation, with full awareness for Actualizing the values based on existing democracies in the past (regime), it seems to be experiencing tremendous distortion. Of the many basic values of the democracy, there is one thing that is very important that it is an attempt to create a government that is transparent, accountable and responsive or often called good governance. That is the overwhelming spirit of the entire Indonesian nation to enforce a clean, authoring government;

− That therefore there is a MPR Decree number XI/MPR/1998, which mandates to be formed Law Number 28 Years 1999, then also the Corruption Penal Code, Law No. 31 of 1999, which is one of its pasts mandated the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission. So actually the MPR Decree No. xI/MPR/1998 was a very important source of the law, so it emerged Law No. 28 of 1999 that formed KPKPN. That is the history of the existence of the Commission for the Wealth Examiners of the State or KPKPN;

− That interprets the Constitutional authority by the enactmentof the KPK prevention, does not conflict with the Basic Law and does not prejudice the constitutional rights and authority of the applicant;

That Section 71 paragraph (2) of the Act No. 30 Year 2002 does not conflict with the Basic Law and does not harm The constitutional authority of the petitioners, because the authoring of the petitioners is granted by law, not by the Constitution/Act of the Constitution of 1945. The provisions of Article 71 of the paragraph (2) reads " After the Corruption Eradication Commission exercises its duty and authority as refheoretical there is called a criminal policy, a crime prevention policy or a criminal policy, which is is a subsystem of law enforcement policy, and law enforcement policy is a social subsystem in the broad sense. Criminal policy is a rational attempt by the public to solve crimes, in this case corruption. So there are basically two elements: the underlying system of criminal justice in the sense of repressive, repressive measures, using a system of criminal justice, referred to as a preventive measure of preventive care without the use of criminal, which includes public mental health, management and control over good public assets and so on. It's a move that

is outstanding, and this conceptual condition is co-ordinative but not separate (complementary) any other;

If it speaks the law, there may be a presumption that eradication is also a deterrent is true. If you speak a system of criminal justice, then the ends are also preventive, so that that will come not to happen again in a heavy idling;

But conceptually as well as the international trend, then the aspect of the prevention is also a result of the term of the criminal justice system. A very important issue, very significant, so there needs to be a large institution set up;

If we review the United Nations Conventions anti-corruption called anti-corruption bodies, the institution is concerned. It's a very large institution, which concerns the formulation of policy. up to the implementation of strategic steps what is done in policy, including control for example against repressive measures;

Experts do not object to the merger of the two institutions, but in the merger it must be reflected things as follows: First in the title of the Act should be clear, not the Eradication Commission of the Corruption Corruption which its conotation tends to be repressive solely. The second is to include prevarative elements into the statute but must be proportional, not doing down grading and redeprivation against KPKPN. KPKPN is better enlarged into an anti-corruption body, not the other way down grading into a small institution, whose function simply lists, there is no follow up to monitor or investigate, accountability. accountability (accountability);

− We want a Government that is transparent, accountable and responsive to the values of fairness or good governance. The true purpose of MPR Decree No. vIII/MPR/2001, is to strengthen our commitment in implementing the MPR Decree No. xI/MPR/1998, then there is a sign that the two institutions are repressive and that are the ones that are repressive. Preventative, which is conceptually separate. Whether such a gesture is the will of the people we see the Decree of MPR number vIII/MPR/2001 which intends to have a separation in a proportionate form?

− That in prevention should be made some legislation, not only a matter of commission, but also the protection of witnesses and the victims of organized crime, freedom of getting information, governance ethics, money laundering and so on. As well as its repressive nature, not only is the Commission for Eradication Of The Corruption Criminal, but it also concerns the wider authority-including other laws, which are relevant;

-That The provisions of the MPR in the laws of the law are still highly relevant, as long as it has not been regulated in a law, it has been held evaluations. Moreover, when it comes to KKN, the law can only be completed if KKN's eradication is complete. So it's a very important thing and it's made in a committee of the People's Consultative Assembly, which is very strategic, so that the people's aspiration in the MPR Act must be kept in its consistency, therefore. In the context of the law, there will always refer to the terms of both the law and the Law of the MPR, or the higher rules, which are in the making of the law. That law, the first is the existence of an academic draft. And that academic draft can be seen as to whether the formation of legislation on the Eradication Commission of Criminal Corruption is in its consistency?

So usually in the academic draft does not contain a section per section, but sees the academic reasoning and accountability (accountability), whether he has a philosophical, historical and other approach that is Sociological. Second, the terms of the term are set by the Council

The People ' s Representative and the Secretary of State, and in the end we enter into a very complex political social corridor that exists in the House of Representatives. All of these processes will pay attention to the various things called consistency or inconsistency with the existing regulations or aspirations;

− That the substance of each person agrees on the formation of the Commission. The Eradication Of Criminal Corruption, all in favor and it's our only hope. Brother Taufiequrrachman Ruki (Chairman of the KPK) and those of the brothers can perform their duties well and restore our faith to good governance in Indonesia. Substantively we do n' t have to be regrettable, there may be flaws here here that need to be fixed, for example about the existence of the Ad Hoc Corruption Tribunal which should not only serve the results of the inquiry conducted by the Commission The Eradication Of Criminal Corruption, but also the entire outcome of the Prosecutor and the Police Department must be tried by that institution. Therefore, this ad hoc existence is important. To be fair, more professional, that court is not just. If only to serve the outcome of the Corruption Eradication Commission, that's because it would be discriminatory. That ' s one of the examples that needs to be fixed;

Basically, the expert strongly supports the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission of Corruption. Its concern is why aspects or institutional that concerns prevention is in the down grade and are incorporated disproportionately. So it was a lofty ideal, the values mentioned as the original values of the MPR Decree number xI/MPR/1998, which could not be ruled out, such as the reasons for efficiency, cheaper and so on. It is something that is not true, if the efficiency sets aside the original original values;

− That of the conceptual terms, the criminal policy must be done through preventative steps and repressive measures, which As significant as it is, it is equal, and is proportional and complementary. As well as in the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/2001, there is clearly a separation and its reflections appear to be in the issue of substance and title. The law as a legislator does have broad authority. The scale may not only be yuridis-normative, but also the economic considerations called for efficiency. Nevertheless, the efficiency should not be streamlined original value and basic concepts. This is what should actually be studied by looking at the academic existence of the draft of a law. In order for the creation of the Act, the Act was debated, but it was not involved in the legal review of the Corruption Eradication Commission;

− That efficiency is economic, meaning: " With minimal expenses, we may achieve a goal that is as maximum possible as possible, useful and useful. Efficient and effective usually is a unit. The provisions of the provisions of the Corruption Eradication Commissionering, corruption as predicate crimes, crime predicates, the source of money laundring. Corruption may jeopardide political stability, corruption has proven to be a national trans-bribery, state-state bribery-bribery. Corruption poses a danger to human security such as education, highly irregular functions of social services, corruption impacting the mental public officials and those who work within the common interests region. So that prevention agency should be positioned as being a big thing instead of a dwarf creature;

− That in terms of conceptual t but does a legal democratization process;

The law must be made aspiratively, if it used to be top down now in addition to the top down also bottom up. The aspiration of the structure is also heard, the aspirations of the infrastructure are heard, the aspirations of experts are deeply heard, international aspirations are Invite-invite is very democratic because it is through a process, let alone through a very strict multi-party and this is what is happening;

So what is called a change of Determination MPR is actually the existence of the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/2001 is a strengthening of the MPR Decree No. XI/MPR/1998, the eradication of the criminal corruption, the eradication of KKN, is not just corruption. The existence of Law Number 30 of 2002 was actually

The signal was already called in Law No. 31 of 1999, the proposed PPP and finally supported by the Government;

So the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission of Corruption is not only the source of the MPR Decree number VIII/MPR/2001, but is mentioned explicitly in an article of Law No. 31 of 1999. So this is a systemic thing, because we don't go on a revolution, but an accelerated evolution;

− That First, the KPKPN is a great institution, formed because of the mandate of a MPR Decree number xI/MPR/1998 and also is formed by legislation that takes a long and precise time, which is very intensive, easily ruled out only for efficiency reasons that it is also not complete. It was not impossible that other institutions would also be formed-disbanded, formed-disbanded on the grounds of efficiency;

KPKPN was formed in 1999, then in 2002 it was liquidated entered into another institution. While the establishment had already been established in the building, the financial administration, personnel and functions of the task were clearly established, and were later liquidated unprofessional. This is a move that cannot be accounted for in modern life, whatever the outcome;

Second, in five conventions against corruption five of the most obvious matter, the preventive elements are very prominent, so differentiated. Really how important it is in Article 5 of which the anti-corruption body is preventative with its considerable duties in policy and so on. The repressive elements clearly exist. Regarding the criminalization of new crimes, there is an illicit enrichment that is self-enrichment, which is unnatural compared to its income, is a criminal act with the inverted proof of illicit enrichment, It's a KPKPN related to you. International cooperation, since corruption has become a transnational and international level. The mechanism is clear and so on. Whose name is asset recovery means how countries should restore other negate assets as corrupt assets, due to money laundring. This is prominent, especially the preventative aspect of which is accentuated as the first part, which is called the preventive aspect;

So it is not easy to combine preventative aspects with repressive aspects. Indeed, at the time of forming the Corruption Eradication Commission, the joint convention has not yet emerged, and it is also thought that we are actually relying on the repressive Corruption Eradication Commission, while the aspects that are in place. Another is a completeness. But the social reality that happens is that KPKPN exists, whatever is governed by the Corruption Eradication Commission, it should not close the eyes on the existence of the existing KPKPN, step ahead in more preventative measures. broad;

The dismissal is, efficiency can be done, but should not abolish the original values reform, for long, original reforms of values later would lose meaning. Secondly, it was merged wisely, professionally, separating completely between the preventative and repressive aspects that it did not mix. The mixing does not mean efficiency, if it causes a confused confused. The commission's duties will be on the case that it is not necessarily related to the repressive that is highly anticipated in the eradication of the criminal corruption. So this discharges that will weaken the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission. It would be good if there was an institution that was separated, whether it was in a law, which could actually separate a conceptual opinion called a criminal policy in repressive form through the criminalization of the system and through a truly repressive prevention with punishment, and preventative on a large scale;

− That it is indeed understanding is not a legal term, but at least there is a more precise down grading which is Degrading the quality of an institution that was originally an institution. Authority-great authority constitutionally, because of its derivatives as well as the Invite-

Invite Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, if ordered to the Determination of the MPR to be a subsystem alone from one institution far from its original functions;

So the constitutional right must be interpreted not only in a doctrinal basis. but also with a broad socio-legal approach;

− That its strangulation functions are laid less or unprofessional, it is contrary to the Basic Law or simply is something short of Act Number 30 In 2002, if his approach was doctrinally, it was difficult to Interpret that, but if the socio-legal approach is that corruption is a violation of the principles of democracy and good governance, then the fundamentals of the constitution can be sought in each section of the constitution, With a democratic approach. The KPKPN is in order to save the democratic principles of the preventive side;

From the repressive side, automatic is within the Eradication Commission Of Criminal Corruption. So the approach must be done socio-legal to be able to interpret the two terms of the material test rights to the constitutionality;

− That what must be done if you want to follow modern concepts including joint convention, must be. combine the thoughts between KPKPN and KPK, but it does not automatically have to the village bedol completely, but the adopt but adapt, so adopted and also adapted, is reorganized as well as well. This was supposed to happen at the time of drafting the Law No. 30 of 2002;

− That the law's right is a political product and whether or not it was a law, depending on the reason that was at that time. The Old Order regime produced controversial subversion eradication laws. It was later adopted by the New Order Regime, which even mixed up the judiciary's power with executive power. That the supposed shape is to separate between the two powers and carry out the checks and balances properly. In the past, a law was clearly seen as a part of the power struggle, but it was not healthy because our constitution gave the executive a great power. What is expected after reform is politics should be interpreted as a healthy, rational politics. Although there can be no real clean politics, but there are standards or parameters about good political life;

The emergence of Law Number 30 of 2002 by melting the KPKPN into the Criminal Eradication Commission Corruption. This is an indicator of the declining spirit of the eradication of corruption, which currently exists in society. The will of the public and the mass media for the erad fluctuation, we did n' t go through the way that revolutions have decided in the past. What we're doing is called accelerated evolution, which is an accelerated evolution. It is the hallmarks of democracy that should be actualized such as elections, good governance, human rights protection, civil society, the separation of the TNI and the Polri, the TNI and the Polri do not enter politics and so on;

Thus, the reforms in the Legal or legal reform means replacing colonial products with national products. Legal reform does not only replace colonial products

The conspiracy of society flows into Law No. 30 of 2002, so that in the technique of formation laws that can make the legal basis of the establishment A law is the rule of law that gives the authority the establishment of the law. Usually in this Section 5 (1) and Article 20 of the Basic Law and also the Determination Of MPR are closely related to this is the Determination Of The MPR that explicitly mentions the need for such laws. Therefore, if the Law No. 30 of the Year of 2002 does not list the MPR Act, then there is something wrong, because the bias is interpreted as not to reflect the spirit.

of the people's aspirations that are later included in the MPR Decree. Since the Basic Law does not enlist in the post-law of the people's aspirations with very concrete formulae, the MPR Decree should be entered in the basis of consideration of such legislation;

− That in the creation of laws or the establishment of legislation, not only looking at the authorizing of the authority in the Basic Law or in the Consultative Assembly of the People, but also must see the circuit Its pasts, so that it cannot only see in its pasts, the consideration, The legal basis only, but overall and must look at the spirit of its formation;

Seeing the aspirations of the community at this time, or in the era of reforms that want the eradication of corruption, how to eradicate corruption if Don't look at the intercept. We can only see the corrupt people, if they first know how it is. We can also see that the formulas in this section certainly bind to the law-forming, either the Government or the People's Representative Council;

Then this matter shall be said to be formulated in the chapters, The term of the MPR, then the provisions of this section, has made an order for the legislation to be further implementation. It can actually be seen whether or not matter one by one or not, if not, then it needs to form a different law, but it all has the spirit to eradicate this corruption. So the Law No. 30 of 2002 also poured out the spirit in this Act as actually, in Article 2 of the 6, but instead, the spirit formulated in the MPR Act was not placed in the considerance of "Menimes". Therefore, people can say that Act No. 30 of 2002 has no such spirit in the Determination Of MPR Number XI/MPR/1998 and the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/2001;

− That Law Number 30 Year 2002 It is a matter that is a matter of fact, which is a matter of advance. If you look at the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 on the Organizing State Organizing and corruption-free, collusion and nepotism, it's actually formulated in Article 3 of the paragraph (1) it is said to prevent the practice. The corruption, collusion and nepotism of a person who is believed to serve a position in the country's organizer, must swear in accordance with his religion, must announce and be willing to examine his wealth before and after taking office. So a person of corruption or not, can be seen from at first he entered the post and at the end of the day;

In his verse (2) states that the examination of the wealth as referred to in verse (1) is above, is done by An institution created by the Head of State, whose membership is made up of the Government and the community;

This is the actual case of KPKPN. KPKPN was created by the Government and the community is sourced to this decree. The eradication of corruption in the verse is said to be a precautionary measure to prevent the practices of corruption. In verse (3) it states that the eradication attempt of the criminal corruption is conducted strictly by performing consistently the Criminal Corruption Act;

This determination distinguates between the prevention and implementation of the corruption. If people are corrupt, there's been a statute of corruption. So the term MPR Decree No. xI/MPR/1998 is the formation of an institution that is independent, and how corruption prevaration can be implemented. As for the eradication of corruption with the other corruption;

Thus the KPKPN is something of an institution that is desirable despite the corruption laws. All this time we saw that a felony.

corruption is on trial, but people are not satisfied, because what is being taken is how to prevent it. Corruption is considered a public disease, so it's best to keep it from treating it first. Article 3 is the basis for the existence of the KPKPN and that is what the MPR Decree number xI/MPR/1998 wants;

− That a judicial review submission cannot be seen from the subject matter of the Basic Law. It would not be possible to be seen that the legislation diverts from the articles in the Basic Law. Since each law is established under the terms and authority provided by the Basic Law, the material may not be in compliance with the spirit of the Base Act, and its spirit can only be viewed from the Opening And also the aspirations of the community;

Law No. 30 of 2002 cannot be directly tentative, with the provisions of the Basic Law, but we can see what the consequences are, what the impact is that there is a criminal corruption. continuously and the longer it increases;

− That it is not may directly see if a passage of a statute is contrary to the provisions of the Basic Law, therefore, in effect, our Basic Law is composed of two norms. The preamble is usually referred to as the fundamental staats norm of a basic state norm. In the properties of a fundamental staats norm, then there are only the outlines of the state's policy and the reach of the State, what is the purpose of the State. It would not be formulated in detail, but formulated the State ' s policies and objectives it was in great line. If in law, he is formulated in a single norm. The norm only flows like that and mentions the goals, there is no criminal sanction. No one can be convicted based on the Opening of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945;

The body stem of the Basic Law is usually called a staatsgrund-gezet, the country's fundamental rule or the principal rule of the country as well. is very common in the form of articles. It does not give any authority that if it is violated, there will be no sign of it, and it will not formulate that it must be constituted of this law unless it is about institutional;

Actually, if seen in the Basic Law. Indeed, there is no mention of the People's Consultative Assembly, the Council of the People's Consultative Assembly, in order to make the MPR Act In the Basic Law it is mentioned that the People's Consultative Assembly establishes the Basic Law and establishes the Great Streaks of the State Haluan (Article 3 of the Basic Law before it is changed);

If the Consultative Assembly is the Council of the State of the State (Article 3 of the Constitution) The People's Consultative Assembly defines the Constitution of the People's Consultative Assembly and the Great Line of State. Thus means that there are two different products, one of which is the Basic Law or Constitution, the other being the Great Outline of the State Haluan;

If the Great Line of State is formed by the People's Consultative Assembly, Then his name is the decision of the People's Consultative Assembly. But in the Decree of the People of the Book, the Decree of the People's Consultatives spirit flows in the Decree of MPR number vIII/MPR/2001, due to the Determination Of MPR Number. VIII/MPR/2001 is an Act that wants more or more warranted. More effectively the implementation of the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998. In Article 2 of the GIII/MPR/2001 MPR Decree, it is said that forming legislation and its implementation rules to prevent corruption from which it constitutes the Eradication Commission of the Criminal Corruption, so that by This mention in an Article of the People's Consultative Assembly, then closely related to Law Number 30 of 2002; ion, and is an institution that coexisted with KPKPN or even KPKPN should be.

it is the parent of the Corruption Eradication Commission, since the first priority is KPKPN in the MPR Decree No. XI/MPR/1998;

So it is clear that in the techniques of possible the forming-the-forming The law doesn't see what it would do if Article 10 until Article 19 is repealed, because what's the point of then there's a 1999 28-year-old law that can't function anything, because they're all put into Law Number. 30 Years 2002 and did not set up the exact same thing with Law No. 28 1999;

So now we must not repeal the Law No. 28 of 1999, during the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 and the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/2001 is still valid. In the MPR Decree Number I/MPR/2003 was stated that the existence of the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 and the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/2001 was very strong. In Article 4 it is stated that the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 on the host of clean and free state of state corruption, collusion and nepotism as its execution is until the resolution of the provisions of the decree;

In the number 10, the number 10 is not available. MPR Decree Number VIII/MPR/2001 on the recommendation of the direction of the eradication policy and the prevention of corruption, collusion and nepotism until the rest of the provisions in the decree, means that the two Provisions Of MPR are not repealed then the existence of the MPR is not revoked. KPKPN could not be revoked. This decree actually formulated a decree that would be immuted, eternal because of how we carry out until the complete tunnation of the eradication of corruption that wherever there is always corruption. But if

both of these provisions still apply then the existence of KPKPN is strong based on both of these grounding;

− That the public hearing, indeed, is sometimes very difficult. If it makes a Draft Act, then it must take how the aspirations of the community want to be regulated or not. The difficulty in the House of Representatives is that which parties will be asked for opinions which may voice the aspirations of the community. But now, since these reforms people demand an openness (transparency) and accountability. The public hearing should actually seek input from the highly competent people and know the issue in the Draft Act. In the Presidential Decree governing the rules of the creation of the Draft Act and the Government Regulation Plan, it is said that: The Minister and the leadership of that agency may apply for a formal request to the President to make a move. The draft bill;

If you see that the No. 30 Act of 2002 will abolish or remove the functions of the KPKPN should the institution that its opinion should be heard in the public hearing is the KPKPN institution itself, so in a technique or procedure the formation of laws exists transparency;

That the existing and functioning agencies are KPKPN and its existence has been accepted by the public and the public knows the results of the KPKPN. If then published by law that would have excluded KPKPN, then KPKPN was not invited to the public hearing, then the public would ask whether the government or the House of Representatives fear KPKPN? That is the opinion of the public including the expert as it is, that the formation of the law does not reflect the aspirations of the public many;

− That it is true the Expert is giving a statement to the Law of the applicant and the applicant directly with way of thinking based on stufenbau-theorie, and placing the Opening of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 as a grund-norm, which recognizes that the grund-norm is beyond the norm of the law;

By reference to the stufenbau-theorie of Hans Kelsen then the Opening is a grund-norm. But Nawiasky argued that the grund norm was something that may or may not have changed. Nawiasky specialises in the Law of the State, so he says a fundamental norm of state or the grund norm of a country is likely to change if there is a coup d' etat, or there is a revolt. Therefore he does not use the term staats grund-norm but staats-fundamental norm;

− That in Article II the Additional Rule is said to be the change of this Basic Law, the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic. Indonesia in 1945 is composed of the preamble and the chapters. The opening and the verses are no more than an explanation except for the articles that have been changed in the trunk of their bodies. As a result of the explanation of the rule, it is the unity of the chapters and in its consideration. The explanation is still there, it can be proven in Article 22 that the Regulation of the Government of the Act is constituted by the President in matters of force, in the description of Article 22 of which it is explained by the President in the United States. forcing is staatsnoodrecht;

− That this explanation is the norm then an explanation cannot be entered into one norm, which explains the norm. This is in order to build a law construction;

− That the MPR is no longer authorized to issue a MPR Act, since the MPR no longer selects the President because the MPR no longer makes GBHN, it is disputed by the Expert because until at any time the MPR remains can make a Decision;

− That the MPR authority is formulated in this constitution. If in the constitution it is not said to be one delegate of authority, sometimes not letterlies are said to be like that. But the establishment of the institution is an establishment of authority to form a decision;

− That the Expert still stands that the MPR is the supreme institution of the state because it forms a constitution;

− That the position of Determination MPR remains as a grund-gezet staats, since the grund-gezet is formed by the same institution, it is based on self-binding theory;

− That a legal norm may lose its power perhaps as it is revoked by the An institution that is authorized by a decision that is as high or higher. Legal norms can also apply and do not need to be revoked but he is lost in his power, for example, if there is a Decree of the MPR that appoints the President, the President is appointed from years to the year so that the decree is valid and with the law. itself will end up on that Decree;

Sometimes in the rules it sets up until when it comes to the rule of the ordinance. So the entry can be repealed or unplugged by itself;

− That a state governed by a rule turns out to be changed, if not repealed it still applies as the norm;

Many laws The Dutch East Indies period is not valid, but he remains stated in the sense of the validity because it has not been revoked or amended with other rules;

− That in Law No. 30 of 2002, the aspect of The intercept hasn't been formulated well. So, if it's been seen here, doesn't the Law No. 30 it don't regulate prevention? If you look at the title of the invite-invite itself is the Law on the Eradication Commission of Criminal Corruption. So direct to the criminal act. We can go straight to it and also if he doesn't include the MPR Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 and the MPR Decree number vIII/MPR/1998 means he doesn't have the spirit from there but only on his corruption;