KPK is an expert in MK about the seller of the pecel because it can be put out

Jakarta -Johanis Tanak, chairman of the KPK Deputy Chairman, responded to the Constitutional Court session saying that the seller of Lele Pecel could be charged on the sidewalk of the Corruption Outbreak Act (Corruption). He emphasized that the legal opinion must be accompanied by a basic and clear legal reasons. “In my opinion, everyone may argue, but their opinions should be clear and legal reasons,” Johanis said when they were contacted on Friday (6/20/2025). Johanis said that if sections 2 and 3 of the Corruption Act are considered problematic, it must be interpreted in the course of law. He emphasized that the interpretation of the right to theory in law should be based, not personal opinions. Browse to continue the content “If it is said that Article 2 and Article 3 have a problem, it must be explained what the problem is accompanied by the basis and reasons that are relationships,” he said. “Even if a rule is interpreted, it must of course be done in accordance with the theory of interpretation in the law, it is not interpreted on the basis of our minds without underlying the rule of law and legal reasons that are relationships,” he added. Tanak refers to the principle of the Law of Notoire Facts in Criminal Law, which is a fact that is known to be known no longer has to prove. According to him, it is clear that the logic of Catfish Pecel seller is impossible to harm the country’s finances. “If you refer to the legal principle, it may be known by the public that it is impossible for the actions of Catfish Pecel sellers on the sidewalk, it will lead to the loss of government financing or the country’s economy,” he said. If a seller of a Catfish Pecel is regarded as section 2 of the Corruption Act, it must be questioned whether it is true to cause government finances or the loss of the country’s economy. Therefore, the Catfish Pecel seller cannot be categorized as a corruption offender. “Thus, the actions of the seller of Catfish Pecel on the sidewalk cannot be qualified as an act of corruption set out in Article 2 of the Corruption Act. Similarly with Article 3 of the Corruption Act,” Johanis said. Previously, legal expert Chandra M Hamzah saw the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) and section 3 contained in the Eradisation of Corruption Act (Corruption Law) Act. Chandra said that the wrong interpretation associated with the content of the article could do the Catfish Pecel seller on the sidewalk. It was transferred by Chandra in the essential test session of the Act Number 31 of 1999 regarding the eradication of corruption crimes (corruption law) as amended by the Act 20/2001, reported by the Constitutional Court (MK) website (6/20/2025). This case tests Article 2 paragraph (1) and section 3 of the Corruption Act contains provisions that act on the Act against the Act that leads to state losses and benefits certain parties. Chandra explained that the content of the article could cause problems. He mentions the formulation of the content of the ambiguous article and can violate the principle of Lex Certa and Lex Stricta. “There should be no unclear or ambiguous transgression formulation, or it may not be interpreted analogy, so that it does not violate the principle of Lex Certa or Lex Stricta,” Chandra said. Chandra explained the contents of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the incorrectly interpreted corruption law, the Catfish Pecel seller can be entangled on the sidewalk. Chandra said a Catfish Pecel seller could be charged with section 2 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Act due to the laws against the law by selling on the sidewalk to be used by pedestrians. “Based on the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Act, the Catfish Pecel seller on the sidewalk may also be subject to these sanctions. Because the Catfish Pecel seller” who has committed acts “against the law” by selling on the porch, “Chandra said. “The Catfish Pecel seller is thus categorized, classified as criminal acts of corruption, there are actions, to enrich themselves, against the law, to benefit yourself or others, to harm the finances of the state,” he added. Meanwhile, Chandra says, Article 3 of the phrases of the Corruption Act can deny “all” at the heart of corruption itself. Because Chandra said, not everyone who tends to be corrupt. In fact, this provision has confirmed the existence of positions or positions that could harm the country’s finances or the country’s economy. “The conclusion is section 2 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Act if I think to be abolished, because the formulation violates the principle of Lex Certa, which actions are declared corruption. Then the second, review of section 3 of the Corruption Act by replacing ‘Civil servant’ and ‘ Inspiring story of the exemplary police candidate here