ARCHIVES
VOL. 11, ISSUE 7 (2025)
Criminal accountability for corruption of the Government Procurement goods/services working group
Authors
Mansur Syakban, Rizanizarli, Efendi
Abstract
Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the
Eradication of Corruption Crimes states that any person who misuses their
authority, opportunity, or means at their disposal due to their position, with
the aim of benefiting themselves, others, or corporations, to the detriment of
the financial interests or economy of the state, may be subject to life
imprisonment or a prison term of at least one year and at most twenty years,
and a fine of at least Rp.50,000,000.00. In the practice of law enforcement,
the focus on handling corruption in government procurement of goods/services is
often limited to the contract implementation stage, while the early process of
selecting providers, which is actually a vulnerable point for deviations, is
frequently overlooked. The Selection Working Group (Pokja) plays a strategic
role in determining the tender winner, and negligence or abuse of authority at
this stage can become the root of corruption crimes. The case of the Kuala
Gigieng Bridge Construction Project illustrates how the tolerance of fake
support letters by the Selection Working Group leads to financial losses for
the state. Based on this finding, the act of abusing the freedom to determine
policies and continuing with manipulation of language or legal interpretation
in deciding the winning contractor by the Working Group should be charged under
Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law. However, in its implementation, the
Working Group was not held accountable or designated as suspects to answer for
their mistakes or negligence. This study aims to analyze the factors causing
corruption in government procurement of goods and services involving the
Working Group, identify the legal considerations that place the Working Group
as a legal subject in cases of corruption in government procurement of goods
and services, and analyze the relevant mechanisms and forms of criminal liability
for the Working Group. The research method used is empirical legal research
conducted by examining the applicability of regulations regarding the criminal
responsibility of the election working group in the crime of corruption in
government procurement of goods/services. Data collection techniques include
field research and library research. The results show that the factors causing
corruption by the working group include individual aspects, institutional
factors, work culture, as well as intrinsic motivations (psychological drives)
and extrinsic motivations (economic pressures and ambitions for positions).
Legally, the working group can be held criminally responsible based on Article
3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, the principle of no punishment without guilt, and
the theory of participation under Articles 55-56 of the Criminal Code. Criminal
responsibility requires the presence of an objective element (unlawful act) and
a subjective element (malicious intent or negligence). The negligence of the
working group in the selection process, such as subjective evaluations or
allowing deficiencies in providers, can lead to state losses. Therefore, there
is a need to strengthen integrity, competency-based selection, limitation of
tenure, and mandatory certification from LKPP. Law enforcement must also target
vulnerable points such as document preparation to the determination of winners.
Collaboration between LKPP, APIP, BPKP, and law enforcement agencies needs to
be strengthened so that case handling is more transparent, faster, and
unbiased.
Download
Pages:71-82
How to cite this article:
Mansur Syakban, Rizanizarli, Efendi "Criminal accountability for corruption of the Government Procurement goods/services working group". International Journal of Law, Vol 11, Issue 7, 2025, Pages 71-82
Download Author Certificate
Please enter the email address corresponding to this article submission to download your certificate.