KPK Reminds SOE Directors To Be Careful In Making Decisions, Don't Be Entangled In Articles Of State Losses

ILLUSTRATION BETWEEN

JAKARTA - The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) reminded SOE directors to be careful in making decisions. They are considered to fulfill the elements of the mens rea or malicious intent so that they can be charged with Articles 2 and 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law on state losses.

This was conveyed by the Head of Task Force II of the Anti-Corruption Directorate of KPK Business Entities Roro Wide Sulistyowati at the national seminar of the Intern Supervisory Unit Community Forum (FKSPI) for the West Java and Banten Regions, Wednesday, September 3.

This activity was attended by representatives of strategic SOEs such as Pertamina, Telkom Indonesia, BRI, Bio Farma, Mining Industry Indonesia, Perkebunan Nusantara, and internal auditors.

"The board of directors' decision must be careful to avoid elements of the men's rea which have the potential to cause conflicts of interest," said Roro Wide as quoted from an official written statement, Saturday, September 5.

Meanwhile, Acting (Plt) Deputy for Prevention and Monitoring of the KPK Aminudin said Law Number 1 of 2025 concerning SOEs does provide a legal basis for the application of business judgment rules (BJR). However, this condition should not be interpreted as a form of providing impunity.

"This principle provides protection for the board of directors from responsibility for business decisions that result in losses as long as the decision is taken in good faith, full of caution, and in accordance with authority," said Amin.

The KPK also identified a number of vulnerable points through the Corruption Risk Assessment (CRA) against Law Number 1 of 2025 concerning SOEs. The following are crucial findings in the spotlight:

1. The division of tasks between the Minister of SOEs and the Implementing Body is not yet clear;

2. The ministerial examination of SOEs does not yet have a strong legal basis;

3. Loans and collateral for assets still require presidential approval, prone to excessive discretion;

4. Potential conflict of interest in the position of Supervisory Board;

5. There is no clear procedure for self-defense for directors/commissioners;

6. Additional sources of capital from outside have not been regulated transparently;

7. Definition of state administrators is not in line with Law no. 28/1999; and

8. Encourage Clean and Accountable Governance.

Responding to this, Constantianus Christiadji as the General Chair of the FKSPI said that the board of directors was indeed required to apply the principle of prudence. Comprehensive risk analysis before making strategic decisions must also be carried out.

"The Board of Directors must provide clear documentation as evidence that decisions are taken rationally and measurably. In carrying out accountability, the board of directors must also be morally and legally responsible for the policies set, in order to maintain public trust," concluded Constantianus.