INDONESIA

WHEN THE VIRUS BROKE OUT, THE OUTBREAK OF CORRUPTIONWAS EVEN MORE MASSIVE IN INDONESIA
Titto Jaelani *I. THE STATUS OF THE NATIONAL DISASTER IS A REASON FOR
CORRUPTION
On 2 March 2020, the first case of Covid-19 was officially detected in Indonesia. Thissuddenly shocked the public, considering that at first the government was optimistic that thevirus variant would not enter Indonesian territory, so that people were faced with a situation inwhich they had not been prepared to deal with the emergency. The spread of Covid-19 has had
the impact of increasing the number of victims and property losses, expanding the coverage ofareas affected by the disaster and having implications for broad socio-economic aspects inIndonesia.
To anticipate this emergency, the President of Indonesia issued Presidential Decree No. 12
of 2020 concerning the Designation of Non-Natural Disasters Spreading COVID-19 as a
National Disaster (Keppres 12/2020) deciding the spread of Covid-19 as a National Disaster andthe establishment of a Task Force chaired by the Regional Head, namely the Governor, Regent
and Mayor, to decide a policy in the affected area.
In line with the adage “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto”, which means people's safety is thehighest law, the Indonesian government immediately rushed to take various steps and strategies
to suppress the spread of Covid-19 and also overcome the domino effect of the pandemic. Oneof the sectors affected by the pandemic is the economic sector, so the government was forced to
immediately take the right policies. 1
The initial step taken by the government was the enactment of Law Number 2 of 2020
concerning State Financial Policy and Financial System Stability for Handling the COVID-19
Pandemic and/or in Facing Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or Financial
System Stability (Law 2 /2020), but the problem is seen in Article 27 paragraph (2) of the Law,
namely:KSSK members, secretaries, secretariat members and officials or employees of the
Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia, the Financial Services Authority and the Deposit
Insurance Corporation and Other Officials, relating to the implementation of thisRegulation, cannot be prosecuted either civilly or criminally if in carrying out the task
it is based on good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the regulation. 2
The content of Article 27 of Law 2/2020 shows that there is “immunity” for the actions ofofficials in handling Covid who may commit corrupt acts. Sure enough, the practice ofcorruption has never been extinguished even though the country is being hit by the Covid-19
Public Prosecutor, Corruption Eradication Commission, Republic of Indonesia.
Journal of Anti-Corruption, Volume 3 Issue I, May 2021.
2
Law Number 2 of 2020 (emphasis added).
*
1

-- 75
75 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

pandemic and is even more massive and worrying. During the Covid-19 pandemic, whereIndonesia is helter-skelter to face the epidemic, corruption is getting worse and had mushroomed
into a “new epidemic”. Like a dazzling gold field, the situation is all-round. This difficulty isused by corruptors for personal gain. Corruption controversies have become increasingly heatedafter the former Minister of Social Affairs, Juliari Batubara, was caught red handed overcorruption cases involving public social assistance funds. Society is being hit by an all-roundsituation, and the crisis is getting worse. The priority of the state at this time is indeed the healthaspect, but this type of white-collar crime cannot be ignored. This paper will discuss the modeof corruption during the pandemic, especially cases that have been handled directly by the author.
II. MAIN DISCUSSION
A. Typology of Corruption in Indonesia
Corruption in Indonesia is widespread in society. Its development continues to increase fromyear to year, both in terms of the number of cases that occur and the amount of state financial
losses as well as in terms of the quality of criminal acts that are carried out more systematicallyand in scope that enters all aspects of people's lives.
The uncontrolled increase in corruption crimes will bring disaster not only to the life of thenational economy but also to the life of the nation and state in general. The widespread andsystematic crime of corruption is also a violation of social rights and economic rights of thecommunity, and because of that all corruption crimes can no longer be classified as ordinary
crimes but have become extraordinary crimes. Likewise, in efforts to eradicate it, it can no longer
be carried out normally, but extraordinary methods are required through special rules governingit.
One of the principles of preference known in legal science is lex specialis derogate legi
generalis, namely special laws that override general laws. The principle has the intention thatfor special events a law that mentions the event must be applied, although for such special eventsa law can also be applied which mentions the event more broadly or more generally.
In line with this principle, the crime of corruption is regulated lex specialist through the Lawof the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts ofCorruption as amended by Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2001 concerning
Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 (PTPK) concerning Eradication of Acts of Corruption.
Meanwhile, in a lex generalist manner, the rules for corruption are contained in the Criminal
Code (KUHP).
The categories of types of criminal acts of corruption as contained in the 30 Articles
contained in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3

State financial losses;
Bribery;
Blackmail;Embezzlement in Position;
Fraud;
Conflict of Interest in the Procurement of Goods and Services;
Gratification. 3

Adami Chazawi, Material Criminal Law and Formal Corruption in Indonesia.

- 76 - 76 -

INDONESIA

Referring to the category of types of corruption and looking at the handling of corruption
related to the Covid-19 pandemic, law enforcement officers in Indonesia usually charge
corruption related to state financial losses as regulated in Article 2/Article 3 of the PTPK Law
and Bribery as regulated in Articles 5, 11, 12, 13 of the PTPK Law.
Likewise in handling corruption cases involving the Minister of Social Affairs, Juliari
Batubara, corruption cases of public social assistance funds are subject to an article on bribery,
namely Article 12 of the PTPK Law. Therefore, the author will discuss cases of corruption
during the Covid-19 pandemic outside of corruption which resulted in state financial losses andbribery, namely Conflicts of Interest in the Procurement of Goods and Services (Article 12 Letter
I of the PTPK Law).
B. Authority of the CEC Post Revision of the Law
In Indonesia, there are basically three law enforcement agencies in eradicating corruption,
namely: (i) the Police; (ii) the Corruption Eradication Commission (CEC) and (iii) the Attorney
General's Office (AGO). Each agency has the authority to investigate criminal acts of corruption.
In an effort to eradicate corruption, the implementation is carried out optimally, intensively,
effectively, professionally and continuously. Based on the provisions of Article 43 of Law
Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by
Law Number 20 of 2001, the CEC has the authority to coordinate and supervise, including
conducting investigations, and prosecution. The CEC is a Central Government institution thathas the duty and authority to prevent and eradicate Corruption Crimes as regulated in Law
Number 30 of 2002 concerning the CEC.
However, in its development, the performance of the CEC is felt to be less effective, the lackof coordination between law enforcement lines, the occurrence of violations of the code of ethics
by the leaders and staff of the CEC, as well as problems in the implementation of duties andauthorities. These problems include: (i) the implementation of the duties and authorities of the
CEC that are different from the provisions of the criminal procedure law, (ii) weakness ofcoordination with fellow law enforcement officers, (iii) problems of wiretapping, (iv)management of investigators and investigators who are not coordinated, (v) overlapping
authority with various law enforcement agencies, as well as the weakness of the absence of asupervisory agency capable of supervising the implementation of the duties and authorities of
the CEC so as to allow faults and deficiencies to exist, and (vi) accountability for the
implementation of the duties and authorities of eradicating corruption by the CEC. For thisreason, legal reform has been carried out so that the prevention and eradication of corruption
acts in an effective and integrated manner so as to prevent and reduce state losses that continue
to grow due to corruption.
Furthermore, the Government of Indonesia together with the House of Representatives of
the Republic of Indonesia promulgated Law number 19 of 2019 concerning the Second
Amendment to Law number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission
where the institutional arrangement of the CEC was carried out in line with the Constitutional
Court Decision Number 36/PUU-XV/2017, which stated that the CEC is part of the executive
branch of government, which is often called a government institution.
Under Article 6 of Law number 19 of 2019, the CEC has the task of taking preventive actions,coordinating with agencies authorized to carry out eradication of corruption and agencies that

-- 77
77 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

carry out public services, monitoring the implementation of state government, supervision of
agencies authorized to carry out corruption eradication, investigation and prosecution of criminal
acts of corruption as well as actions to carry out the determination of judges and court decisions.
Then in addition to the duties, there is also the authority of the CEC as contained in Article
11 of the Act, namely, in carrying out its duties, the CEC has the authority to carry out
investigations and prosecutions carried out by:•

involving law enforcement officers, State Administrators, and other people who are
related to Corruption Crimes committed by law enforcement officers or State
Administrators; and/or•

concerning state losses of at least Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah). 4

C. Corruption Case Related to the Distribution of Shopping Food During the Covid-19
Pandemic
It is undeniable that Article 27 of Law 2/2020 is a gap for corrupt officials to smooth out
their intentions to take advantage to be used for their personal and cronies' interests. Instead ofsaving the community from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the official betrayed the nationand state, especially with regard to his influence on the procurement of goods and services in the
procurement of social assistance in the form of nine basic commodities (sembako) for the lower
middle class.
1. Case Description
Former West Bandung Regent AA UMBARA SUTISNA, hereinafter referred to as thePerpetrator, was, around March 2020, involved in a corruption case involving the misuse of his
position to participate in the procurement of goods for the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency
Response at the West Bandung Regency Social Service Office in 2020. The case began after
there were reports from the public related to the existence of social assistance in the form of
packages of nine staples (sembako) which are not feasible where the budget allocation comesfrom the Unexpected Expenditure (BTT) of West Bandung Regency in the amount of
Rp52,151,200,000.00 (fifty two billion one hundred fifty one million two hundred thousand
rupiah) , which is intended for social assistance in the form of food packages as much as 120,000(one hundred and twenty thousand).
However, in realizing the Social Assistance programme, because the Perpetrator wanted
benefits for himself and his family, the Perpetrator appointed the social assistance package
provider to the closest people to the Perpetrator and the Perpetrator's family, which was carriedout in the following modes, namely:•

4

The perpetrator held a meeting with M. TOTOH GUNAWAN, a businessman who was
his friend since childhood who was also the Perpetrator's Success Team during the 20182023 West Bandung Regent Election; in the meeting it was agreed that M. TOTOH
GUNAWAN would be the provider of the Social Assistance (Bansos) package for thepeople of West Bandung Regency who were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic as manyas 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand) basic food packages with the condition
that they must set aside six per cent of the total profit for the Perpetrator;

Article 11 of Law number 19 of 2019.

- 78 - 78 -

INDONESIA•

The perpetrator ordered the procurement official to directly appoint the company M.
TOTO GUNAWAN without being accompanied by a study by the agency regarding thefeasibility of the company.

•

The Perpetrator also used the company owned by M. TOTOH GUNAWAN in the
procurement of this social assistance, the Perpetrator also appointed a company preparedby ANDRI WIBAWA (the Perpetrator's biological son) without being accompanied bya study by the agency regarding the feasibility of the company in exchange for one percent of the company's profits. 5

The perpetrator as the West Bandung Regent who was assigned to oversee the procurementof goods and services in an emergency; however, it turned out that the Perpetrator participatedin arranging the provider of the goods procurement package for the COVID-19 Pandemic
Emergency Response at the District Social Service West Bandung TA. 2020 by appointing his
close friend, TOTOH GUNAWAN and including his son ANDRI WIBAWA.
By the CEC Public Prosecutor, Perpetrator AA UMBARA was charged with a violation of
Article 12(i), which reads: “a civil servant or state administrator either directly or indirectly
intentionally participates in the chartering, procurement, or leasing, which at the time of theact, for the whole or in part assigned to manage or supervise it”, then imprisonment for 7(seven) years and additional punishment in the form of payment of compensation as much asreceived by the Perpetrator in the amount of Rp.2,379,315,000.00 (Two billion three hundred
seventy nine million three hundred and fifteen thousand rupiah) as well as the revocation of
the right to be elected in public office for 5 (five) years after serving the sentence.
Furthermore, the judge at the first level up to the cassation level granted all the demands of
the Public Prosecutor, but the case of corruption involving a close friend and child of
Perpetrator AA UMBARA was acquitted by the judge on the grounds that it was not legallyand convincingly proven.
2. Obstacles in Handling the Case
The main challenge in handling this case was to prove the involvement of the private sector
or other parties for proof of article 12(i). This was the first time the CEC carried out a Covid19 social assistance case, which previously only used acts of corruption that harm state finances
as stated in Article 2, Paragraph (1), or Article 3 and acts of bribery as referred to in Articles 5,
11, 12 and 13 of the Corruption Eradication Law.
The CEC Public Prosecutor has screened the actions of other parties in layers with theactions of people who commit or who participate in and carry out as referred to in Article 55
paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code and then also present experts in the criminal field who
explain that other parties can be held criminally responsible. However, the Judge is of theopinion that conflicts of interest in the procurement of goods and services can only be imposed
on officials or state administrators who have the authority or influence over the decision in the
procurement, which is of course contrary to the analysis submitted by the public prosecutor.
Another challenge in handling this case is that there is no common understanding between
other law enforcers who still tend to move only to find state financial losses in the misuse ofsocial assistance funds, which on the one hand really requires quite complicated proof while5

Supreme Court Decision Number: 2910 .K/Pid.Sus/202 2 dated 13 July 2022.

-- 79
79 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

the time is limited due to the length of detention of a suspect. The statutory instrument regulates
other acts of corruption so that there is no harm in using articles that do not require complicatedevidence and in the end it can also be confiscated assets by using additional penalties in theform of payment of compensation for an amount that the Perpetrator enjoys as stated in articles
17, 18 of the Eradication Law Corruption.
3. Countermeasures
Social assistance for handling those affected by Covid-19 can contain the potential for
massive and large corruption due to the first weakness of supervision in the procurement
process in which internal supervision is formed by the Regional Head, which is of course prone
to intervention; secondly, the overlapping of rules related to procurement for social assistanceand limitations of personnel in interpreting the intent of the regulation; and, thirdly, the weakvalue of integrity possessed by the bureaucracy in Indonesia.
The CEC has the authority in terms of prevention; therefore, strategic steps must be agreed
to prevent acts of corruption including:
1. Encouraging government and winning companies to be more transparent in reporting
all their activities including profits;
2. Improving the quality of the bureaucracy;
3. Strict punishment;
4. Increasing community participation in monitoring the implementation of social
assistance;
5. Supervision of Anti-Corruption Institutions;
6. Reviewing overlapping rules.
From the handling of the cases above, a lesson can be drawn, namely that the Regional
Head in determining policies that are prone to abuse of authority can involve relevant agencies
as an example for preventing corruption involving the CEC. Then for technical procurement ofgoods and services it can involve the Government Goods and Services Procurement Policy
Institute (LKPP).
In addition, law enforcement officers, including investigators, public prosecutors andjudges, need to also improve their ability to recognize the ways in which the perpetrators ofcorruption carry out their actions so that there are similarities and updates on the mode of action,
especially those who can be held criminally accountable, not only limited to actions regulated
in one law but must be synchronized with other laws.
III. CONCLUSION
1. Social Assistance for communities affected by Covid-19 is very vulnerable to corruption,
especially in Indonesia. Regional Heads or the highest officials in Ministries/Institutions arefilled with people who come from political parties so that they can certainly have goals fortheir own interests or parties in determining policies. Instead of helping the community's
economy, the fact is that the assistance was corrupted by taking refuge in the rules of Article
27 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 2020 to obtain immunity, even though they forgot
there was a phrase in the article that stated “...in carrying out tasks based on Good intention...”contrary to their actions that are not based on good faith. Therefore, serious efforts are needed
to change the mindset of bureaucratic officials, especially regarding the values of integrity.

- 80 - 80 -

INDONESIA
2. Conflict of Interest in the Procurement of Goods and Services is a type of corruption as
referred to in Article 12(i) of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal
Acts of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, which is certainly vulnerable tothe authority possessed by an official. Therefore, it is necessary to involve the competentagency from an early stage to oversee the procurement process starting from planning toprocurement implementation so that corruption can be avoided.

-- 81
81 --