DPR Commission III Expresses Strong Support for Yusril Ihza Mahendra’s Proposal to Revise Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Law

Jakarta, CNN Indonesia — The legislative branch of Indonesia’s government has signaled a strong willingness to overhaul the nation’s primary legal weapon against graft. Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR), which oversees legal affairs, human rights, and security, has officially expressed its backing for the initiative spearheaded by Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections, Yusril Ihza Mahendra. The proposal calls for a comprehensive revision of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, commonly referred to as the Tipikor Law.

The endorsement from key parliamentarians marks a significant step forward in what could become one of the most substantial legal overhauls of Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework in over two decades. However, lawmakers have emphasized that while the modernization of the law is both timely and necessary, the legislative process must proceed with meticulous caution. The ultimate goal is to fortify the state’s capacity to prosecute financial crimes without inadvertently stifling legitimate economic activity or creating legal loopholes that could be exploited by bad actors.

Legislative Backing and Key Conditions

Ahmad Sahroni, Deputy Chairman of Commission III of the DPR, voiced his support for the initiative, noting that any progressive measure aimed at strengthening the country’s anti-corruption apparatus deserves backing from the legislature.

"In my view, every effort to strengthen the eradication of corruption must certainly be supported by us, including if there is a pressing need to revise the Tipikor Law," Sahroni stated during a communication session.

Despite this strong endorsement, Sahroni outlined specific caveats that the government and parliament must address before moving forward with the draft bill. He stressed that the revision process cannot be rushed and must actively involve a diverse array of stakeholders, placing special emphasis on legal scholars, industry practitioners, and academic experts.

According to Sahroni, proposed modifications to the core definition of corruption within the Tipikor Law—a point of intense debate among legal observers—must be meticulously drafted to eliminate any potential for legal uncertainty. As a prominent politician from the NasDem Party, Sahroni also threw his weight behind a specific policy addition: incorporating the illicit financial practice known as under-invoicing directly into the anti-corruption statute.

Addressing the Threat of Under-Invoicing

Under-invoicing is a sophisticated trade-based financial crime wherein business entities manipulate commercial documentation, such as invoices, to falsely declare lower transaction values, quantities, or volumes of traded goods than what actually occurred. This illicit tactic is frequently utilized by corporate actors to evade customs duties, bypass corporate taxes, launder money, and illegally transfer capital offshore, thereby draining the state of vital revenues.

"I fully support the proposal to incorporate under-invoicing into the Tipikor Law. This is a matter that urgently needs to be considered, especially because this fraudulent practice has also become a serious point of concern for President Prabowo Subianto," Sahroni explained, highlighting alignment with the executive branch’s broader financial governance goals.

Nevertheless, Sahroni issued a pragmatic warning regarding the implementation of such a broad legal expansion. He insisted that the regulatory language must remain crystal clear, leaving zero room for interpretive ambiguity. Such precision is vital to prevent the new regulations from becoming administrative bottlenecks or unfair impediments to the broader business and trade sectors, which are critical to national economic growth.

Background and Context of the Legislative Push

The push to amend the Tipikor Law does not occur in a vacuum; it is part of a broader, systemic modernization of Indonesia’s national legal architecture. Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra has consistently advocated for updating the anti-corruption framework to run concurrently with the implementation of the newly ratified Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

A central argument driving Yusril’s legislative agenda is the urgent need to harmonize domestic Indonesian legislation with international anti-corruption standards. Most notably, Indonesia ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) back in 2006 via Law Number 7 of 2006. However, legal experts have long pointed out that the domestic Tipikor Law has remained fundamentally unchanged since 2001, creating a legislative lag that hinders cross-border asset recovery and modern anti-corruption enforcement.

Furthermore, the legislative calendar in Jakarta is currently seized with the ongoing deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset). The convergence of these legal initiatives creates an administrative and philosophical imperative for synchronization.

"And then we are also currently discussing the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture. Therefore, whether we like it or not, there must be a synchronization with the existing Tipikor Law," Yusril previously noted, emphasizing that modern investigative tools and asset recovery mechanisms require a unified statutory foundation to function effectively.

Chronology of the Anti-Corruption Legal Evolution

To understand the weight of the proposed revision, it is helpful to examine the historical trajectory of Indonesia’s anti-corruption legislation:

• 1999 (Law No. 31 of 1999): Following the fall of the Suharto regime and the dawn of the Reformasi era, Indonesia enacted its foundational modern anti-corruption law, establishing the baseline definitions for state financial losses and bribery.
• 2001 (Law No. 20 of 2001): Dissatisfied with loopholes in the 1999 statute, the legislature amended the framework via the current Tipikor Law, expanding the definition of corruption crimes, introducing mandatory minimum sentences, and establishing specific corruption offenses.
• 2002 (Law No. 30 of 2002): The establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), providing an independent investigative body armed with extraordinary powers to utilize the Tipikor Law.
• 2006 (Law No. 7 of 2006): Indonesia officially ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), committing the state to international cooperation standards that have yet to be fully integrated into domestic statutory definitions.
• 2023–2024: The overhaul of the National Criminal Code (KUHP) creates systemic ripples, prompting legal reformers to argue that legacy statutes like the 2001 Tipikor Law are structurally outdated and require modernization.
• Late 2024–Present: Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra reignites the discourse on a comprehensive Tipikor Law revision, tying it directly to ongoing debates surrounding the Asset Forfeiture Bill and trade-based financial crimes.

Broader Economic and Legal Implications

A thorough revision of the Tipikor Law carries profound implications for both the political economy and the judicial landscape of Indonesia. By attempting to capture trade-based financial offenses like under-invoicing, the state is signaling an aggressive pivot toward combating sophisticated corporate crime, which often causes vastly more economic damage than traditional bureaucratic bribery.

However, legal analysts caution that expanding the scope of criminal acts of corruption must be balanced against the risk of over-criminalization. In sectors dependent on international trade, slight discrepancies in valuation are sometimes driven by volatile global market conditions or logistical complexities rather than criminal intent. If the legislative definitions lack precision, corporations may adopt an overly risk-averse posture, potentially dampening foreign direct investment and slowing down import-export velocity.

At the same time, aligning domestic legislation with UNCAC standards will dramatically enhance Indonesia’s legal posture in international forums, particularly regarding mutual legal assistance (MLA) treaties. When Indonesian law enforcement agencies track corrupt assets hidden in offshore financial havens, foreign courts frequently demand that the predicate offenses match internationally recognized definitions. A modernized Tipikor Law that explicitly incorporates modern financial crimes will eliminate these technical hurdles, streamlining the return of stolen state assets.

As the debate moves from executive proposals to formal parliamentary deliberations, the success of the upcoming legislative sessions will depend heavily on the quality of stakeholder engagement. By heeding calls from figures like Ahmad Sahroni to consult widely with legal scholars, economists, and industry practitioners, the DPR and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights have a unique window to craft a resilient, future-proof anti-corruption statute that protects state finances without compromising economic vitality.