The Effectiveness of the KPK After Legislative Interventions: A Critical Legal Analysis

Abstract

The Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi or KPK) has long been regarded as a cornerstone of Indonesia’s anti-corruption architecture. However, recent legislative interventions—most notably the 2019 revision of the KPK Law—have raised serious concerns about the commission’s autonomy, authority, and overall effectiveness. This paper presents a critical legal analysis of the impact of these legislative changes on the KPK’s institutional performance, prosecutorial power, and public legitimacy. Drawing from doctrinal legal research, judicial review outcomes, policy documents, and expert interviews, the study evaluates the post-revision KPK’s ability to function as an independent and effective anti-corruption body. The analysis reveals that the legislative interventions have significantly constrained the KPK’s investigative independence, particularly through the establishment of a supervisory board and the requirement for external approvals in wiretapping and investigations. These changes have led to declining prosecution rates, reduced public trust, and heightened political interference. While framed by lawmakers as efforts to strengthen oversight and accountability, the revisions have in practice diluted the commission’s institutional strength and deterrent effect. This paper contributes to the international legal discourse by illustrating how formal legal reforms can paradoxically weaken anti-corruption institutions under the guise of regulatory improvement. The Indonesian case demonstrates the fragility of institutional integrity in transitional democracies and offers cautionary insights for other countries undergoing legal restructuring of anti-corruption agencies. It underscores the importance of maintaining functional independence as a prerequisite for institutional credibility and impact.