THE ROLE OF THE CORRUPTION ERADICATION COMMISSION (KPK) IN ADDRESSING CORRUPTION CRIMES IN INDONESIA

Abstrak

This article examines the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Indonesia by analyzing its establishment, institutional development, preventive functions, repressive enforcement role, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and major contributions to anti-corruption governance. Using a qualitative descriptive method with a library research approach, the study relies on secondary sources, including laws and regulations, official institutional documents, journal articles, books, and credible media reports. The analysis is conducted from a normative-legal perspective to understand the KPK’s position within Indonesia’s criminal justice system and its broader role in strengthening accountability and public integrity. The findings show that the KPK was established through Law Number 30 of 2002 as an independent institution to address the limitations of conventional law enforcement agencies in handling corruption cases, especially those involving high-ranking officials and complex networks. Its preventive role is reflected in public education, integrity-building programs, corruption risk assessments, public service monitoring, and digital transparency initiatives. Meanwhile, its repressive role includes investigation, evidence collection, arrest, asset tracing, prosecution before the Corruption Court, and execution of court decisions. The KPK also plays an important coordinating and supervisory role in collaboration with the Indonesian National Police, the Attorney General’s Office, financial supervisory bodies, internal auditors, and other anti-corruption stakeholders. In terms of achievement, the KPK has contributed to handling numerous corruption cases, recovering state financial losses, improving public trust, and encouraging bureaucratic reform. Overall, the KPK remains a strategic institution in Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework, although its effectiveness continues to depend on institutional independence, legal support, and political commitment.