Satire For The KPK OTT At The Ministry Of Education And Culture: New Normal Theory

JAKARTA - The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) conducted a hand-arrest operation (OTT) in the Ministry of Education and Culture (Kemendikbud), Wednesday, May 20 yesterday. However, this silent operation has recently been criticized by anti-corruption activists. The KPK is considered to have humiliated itself.

It is known, in the OTT, the KPK secured the Head of the Personnel Division of the Jakarta State University (UNJ) along with evidence of money totaling 1,200 US dollars and Rp27,500,000. The money, which comes from several Deans of Faculties and Institutions at UNJ, is expected to be given to the Director of Resources at the Directorate General of Higher Education and several HR staff at the Ministry of Education and Culture.

However, after examining a number of parties, including UNJ Chancellor Komarudin, this institution instead handed over the case to the police because they thought there was no state administrator in this case.

Responding to this situation, the Coordinator of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI) Boyamin Saiman then criticized the KPK. According to him, the KPK was deemed unprofessional and humiliated itself. He also considered that this transfer was an oddity.

"The Chancellor is a State Administrator because there is an obligation to report his assets to the LHKPN. If the KPK states there is no state administrator, it means that there is a new theory made in the new normal KPK due to corona," Boyamin said in his written statement on Friday, May 22.

He considered, this catching activity was not equipped with good planning and deepening of the existing information. In fact, in the previous KPK period, any information that came in would usually be discussed and explored in detail. So, when the silent operation was carried out there were no more mistakes including deciding that there was no state administrator.

Boyamin even accused that the KPK was currently only looking for sensation and for the existing irregularities, his party would immediately report this to the KPK Supervisory Board.

"The action against the OTT is just a sensation, it is considered as already working. We will immediately file a complaint to the KPK Supervisory Board regarding the messy OTT," he said.

Apart from Boyamin, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher Kurnia Ramadhana also criticized the submission of the case. According to him, there were two allegations of corruption that could have been used by the KPK in investigating this case.

The first allegation, he said, was the alleged corruption in the form of extortion or illegal fees committed by the Rector of UNJ Komarudin. Moreover, Article 2 point 7 of Law Number 28 Year 1999 explains that leaders of state universities are categorized as state administrators.

"Of course it is related to Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a of Law Number 19 Year 2019, so the KPK has the authority to handle corruption cases involving state officials," said Kurnia in his written statement.

This anti-corruption activist also explained that this has also been clearly regulated in Article 12 letter e of Law Number 20 of 2001 which states, state administrators who with the intention of benefiting others illegally by abusing their power force someone to give something or pay can be maximally charged. 20 years in prison and a fine of Rp1 billion.

"The case with the extortion model like this is not the first time that the KPK has handled it. In 2013, this anti-corruption agency has also caught the Regional Office of the Directorate General of Taxes Civil Servant Investigator Pargono Riyadi. Hendro amounting to Rp125 million, "said Kurnia.

The second allegation is the alleged bribery. According to him, this allegation would become clearer if the KPK could reveal the background of the money giving. "Is it just giving THR or more," he said

Kurnia assessed that this case should not be enough just to see the amount of money that is so small or around Rp. 55 million. This case, should continue to be investigated whether this is the first time giving or has been done before.

"It is important to emphasize that assessing a case is not enough just by looking at the amount of money as evidence that is secured," he said.

Acting Spokesperson for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the field of prosecution Ali Fikri then answered the criticism raised by the MAKI Coordinator, Boyamin Saiman. He said, Boyamin did not understand the construction of the OTT that ensnared the UNJ officials but had already made wrong opinions in the community.

"Boyamin Saiman's statement shows that the person concerned does not understand the construction of the case but has already built a wrong opinion with the public," Ali said in his written statement.

According to him, the silent operation occurred because the KPK was asked for assistance by the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Education and Culture because it was suspected that there was a provision of THR money at the order of the UNJ Rector. However, in the OTT, the KPK only secured one person, namely the Head of Section (Kabag) with the initials DAN and he was not a state administrator.

"According to the law, those who were caught were not categorized as state administrators," he said.

For this reason, the KPK then submitted the case to another party, namely the police. It's just that, according to Ali, this kind of thing is actually not the first time this has happened. The KPK, he said, had often submitted cases to other law enforcers such as the police or the Attorney General's Office if the parties being secured were not state officials.

This is because other law enforcers, such as the National Police and the Attorney General's Office, are not limited to the elements of state administrators when investigating corruption cases. "This is different from the Corruption Eradication Commission, which has a limit on Article 11 of the KPK Law," said Ali.

He also said that although the case has now been submitted to the police, the KPK still has the opportunity to handle the case of giving the THR. Provided that elements of state officials are found.

"After submitting the case, it is possible that after a more in-depth investigation by asking for more information from other parties, it turns out that a case based on sufficient evidence turns out to be the involvement of state officials so that it can be held accountable legally," he concluded.