Former Central Lombok Regent Suhaili Asked To Attend The BLUD Corruption Session

Defendant Adi Sasmita's legal adviser, Lalu Anton Hariawan (left) showed a copy of Central Lombok Perbup Number 53 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Procurement of BLUD Goods/Services at Praya Hospital,/ANTARA

CENTRAL LOMBOK - Former Central Lombok Regent, West Nusa Tenggara, Suhaili, was asked by legal counsel from one of the defendants to be present as a witness at the trial of the corruption case in the management of funds from the Regional Public Service Agency (BLUD) at Praya Hospital. "In the trial, we asked the panel of judges to present the former Regent of Central Lombok. However, it is enough, said the prosecutor (public prosecutor)," said Lalu Anton Hariawan in Mataram, quoted from Antara, Tuesday, May 30. Suhaili's request for Suhaili to be present to testify in the trial of the defendants Adi Sasmita and Baiq Prapningsiah Asmarini, he explained, regarding the issuance of Central Lombok Regent Regulation (Perbup) Number 53 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Procurement of Goods/Services for BLUD at Praya Hospital, Central Lombok Regency. "Because in this case, there are those who are not contradictory regarding the basis for the procurement of BLUD goods/services, that is between expert statements from LKPP (the government's procurement policy institution) and the inspectorate. Therefore, because it is related to the Perbup, the former regent who issued must be present to provide an explanation," he said. In the trial which took place on Monday night, an expert from LKPP said that the procurement of BLUD goods/services refers to the rules issued by the BLUD leadership, in this case the Director of Praya Hospital, dr. Muzakir Langkir. However, the information from LKPP is different from the Central Lombok Inspectorate which states that the procurement of BLUD goods/services refers to the Central Lombok Perbup Number 53 of 2016. The Perbup that regulates the procurement of BLUD goods/services is also considered by Anton to be the legal derivative of the Presidential Regulation (Perpres) of the Republic of Indonesia Number 16 of 2018 concerning the Procurement of Government Goods/Services. "In Article 61, it has been stated that the procurement of BLUD goods/services is included in the exemption of the Perpres," he said. Likewise, the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs (Permendagri) of the Republic of Indonesia Number 79 of 2018 concerning Regional Public Service Agencys. Secara jelas, kata dia, telah disebutkan dalam Pasal 77 bahwa ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai pengadaan barang dan/atau jasa pada BLUD yang bersumber dari jasa layananan, hibah tidak ter bound, hasil kerja sama dengan pihak lain, dan lain-lain pendapatan BLUD yang sah, itu diatur dengan peraturan kepala daerah. He also said that the defendant Adi Sasmita as the official commitment maker (PPK) in the management of BLUD Praya carried out his duties in accordance with the Central Lombok Perbup. "That's why in Article 13 paragraph (4) letter a, PPK asks procurement officials only to one provider of goods/services. This direct procurement is for a budget of more than Rp. 50 million to Rp. 1 billion," said Anton. In addition to the basic regulatory issues from the procurement of BLUD goods/services, the panel of judges in the trial also questioned the value of state losses as a result of the Central Lombok Inspectorate audit. According to the judge, the state loss figure of Rp.883 million, which emerged from the procurement of wet and dry food, had not yet reached the full content of the indictment which outlines the loss figures for the management of the BLUD for the 2017-2020 period. In addition, from the loss figure of Rp.883 million related to the procurement of wet and dry foods, the judge saw things that were unnatural from the results of the inspectorate audit team which also included the calculation of the percentage of income tax (PPh) from each product. "The income tax has entered the product price, but it is also calculated as a loss figure. Therefore, yesterday's trial the judge asked the inspectorate to vote, stick to the calculated results or re-examine it. There was no answer," he said. Furthermore, Anton said that the panel of judges again scheduled a follow-up trial of the BLUD fund management corruption case at the Praya Hospital, Monday (5/6), with the agenda of examining witnesses from the defendant (Ad. Chard). In the agenda next week, Anton has not revealed the witness who will be present to testify for the defendant Adi Sasmita. The prosecutor in this case charged Adi Sasmita and Baiq Prapningdiah Asmarini as former treasurers and other defendants, namely dr. Muzakir Langkir, former Director of Praya Hospital and provider of goods to do, order to do, and participate in doing actions that benefit yourself or others or a corporation in managing BLUD funds at Praya Hospital in 2017 to 2020. The prosecutor also stated in the indictment that as a result of Muzakir Langkir's actions together with Adi Sasmita, Baiq Prapningdiah Asmarini and the provider of goods had suffered state losses of Rp.883 million according to the results of the Central Lombok Inspectorate audit.

Therefore, in the indictment of the three defendants, the public prosecutor applied the allegations of Article 2 paragraph (1) and/or Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 paragraph (1) letter b of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law no. 20 of 2001 jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the 1st Criminal Code.