FSP BUMN Bersatu asks 6 employees of PT APBS to be sentenced to pure freedom

JAKARTA - The Federation of State-Owned Enterprises United Workers' Union (FSP BUMN Bersatu) asked the panel of judges to give a pure acquittal to six employees of PT Alur Pelayaran Barat Surabaya (APBS) who were defendants in the alleged corruption case of the shipping channel dredging project.

The Secretary General of the FSP BUMN Bersatu, Gatot Sugihana, assessed that a number of arguments in the defense memorandum or pleidoi of the defendants showed fundamental problems in proving the elements of corruption, especially regarding the authority, legality of procurement, alleged collusion, and calculation of state financial losses.

According to Gatot, the pleidoi filed by Pelindo and APBS is basically two sides of the same legal case. Pelindo's defense focuses more on the legality of the employer, while APBS's defense maintains the legality of the job performer.

"The two defense notes are two sides of the same legal event," Gatot wrote in his analysis, quoted via an electronic message received, Jakarta, Wednesday, August 12.

Gatot noted that there were a number of main arguments that became the basis for the defense. Among them, Pelindo's authority was considered valid because the Concession Agreement and its addendum and the Letter of Appointment of the Director General of Maritime Transportation Number PP201/1/20/DJPL-17 dated October 30, 2017 were never revoked, canceled, or declared invalid.

The direct appointment to APBS is also considered valid because the work is categorized as a business critical asset and APBS is an affiliated company in the Pelindo Group.

In addition, the SIUPR APBS is said to remain in force because it was issued on October 8, 2019, has been evaluated repeatedly by the Ministry of Transportation's Technical Team, and has never been revoked.

The defense also questioned the calculation of HPS or OE and denied collusion in the procurement process. The conversations that became the basis for the indictment, according to the defense, did not show any price arrangement or winner.

One of the important points highlighted by the FSP BUMN Bersatu is the proof of state financial losses.

In the pleidoi, it was stated that the calculation of losses was not carried out by the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) and did not use the SPKN standards or BPK Regulation Number 1 of 2017.

The defense also questioned the calculation method which only took into account the APBS receipt from Pelindo of IDR 190.10 billion with payment to PT SAI of IDR 101.96 billion and PT Rukindo of IDR 4.92 billion.

Gatot assessed that the argument regarding the authority and method of calculating losses had weight in the case. However, according to him, the argument does not necessarily automatically lead to a free verdict.

"Therefore, this argument realistically produces a correction of the number or reduction of the sentence, not release," Gatot wrote in his analysis.

However, he assessed that the overall defense argument could still be the basis for the panel of judges to reconsider whether or not the elements of the alleged criminal act were met by the defendants.

Boat Rental Questioned

Gatot also highlighted the use of other parties' ships in the implementation of dredging work. According to APBS' defense, the relationship with PT SAI and PT Rukindo is a ship-for-hire relationship that is common in the dredging industry and not a transfer of work.

APBS is said to continue to carry out various functions in the work, ranging from hydrographic surveys, licensing management, installation of Navigation Aids for Shipping (SBNP), management of dumping areas, reporting to contractual responsibilities until the work is completed and documented in the handover minutes.

However, in his analysis, Gatot assessed that the argument was still one of the points that needed to be tested by the panel of judges.

He assessed that if the judge considers that PT SAI operates the ship with its own crew, while APBS maintains a margin of around 44 percent of the contract value for project management functions, then the construction of the relationship as a mere "ship rental" can be questioned.

Replacement money Rp83.2 billion

In addition to the request for a free verdict, Gatot highlighted the issue of compensation of Rp83.2 billion imposed on the defendant Firmaniansyah.

According to him, the funds were said to have entered the cash of PT APBS as a separate legal entity and not into Firmaniansyah's personal account. The public prosecutor was also said to have not found any personal funds flowing to the person concerned.

Therefore, Gatot assessed that the issue of compensation money was one of the important points that the panel of judges needed to consider.

"The most realistic chance of winning: the withdrawal of Firmaniansyah's replacement money," wrote Gatot.

However, he also admitted that the change in the construction of the prosecutor's demands from Article 2 to Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law could be a challenge for the defense.

According to Gatot, Article 3 does not require money to be deposited into the defendant's personal account. Profits for corporations can also be part of proving the element of "benefiting a corporation".

Thus, the profit of Rp83.2 billion recorded at PT APBS can be part of the proof of this element if other elements are met.

Gatot said that ultimately all of these arguments must be assessed based on the facts of the trial and the evidence that has been examined before the panel of judges.

FSP BUMN Bersatu hopes that the panel of judges can give an objective verdict and thoroughly consider the defense arguments of the defendants.

In the pleidoi, the defendants asked the panel of judges to declare that they were not legally proven and convinced of committing the crime as charged, to be acquitted of the charges and legal demands, and to restore the rights, dignity, dignity, and status of the defendants.

Gatot emphasized that the request for pure freedom was part of an effort to ensure that the legal process against state-owned workers was based on strong evidence and the principle of justice.

"The most important thing is to ensure that each defendant is punished based on the acts that are actually proven, not solely because of his position or position in a company," said Gatot.