Handling Customs Cases in the Spotlight, Transparency as the Key to Maintaining Public Trust

The trial of the DJBC bribery case involving the Blueray cargo company at the Corruption Court / Photo: IST

JAKARTA - The handling of the alleged bribery case in the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (DJBC) which is being handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has become a public spotlight. Although more than 20 freight forwarding companies or forwarders have been examined for 130 days, it turns out that only one company has been named a suspect.

This condition raises various questions among the public. A number of parties assess that the openness of information related to the development of investigations needs to be strengthened so that it does not create speculation or allegations of different treatment for certain parties.

Political communication and public policy expert, Dr. Adi Suparto, assessed that legally, the examination of a person or a party as a witness does not automatically lead to the determination of the status of a suspect. In the criminal justice system, the determination of a suspect must be based on sufficient initial evidence and meet the provisions of the law.

Based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the status of a suspect can only be determined if there is strong evidence supported by valid evidence. This provision is also strengthened in the rules governing corruption and the authority of the KPK.

In the case that is being handled, Blueray Cargo was named a suspect after investigators obtained a number of evidence, ranging from the results of the hand-to-hand operation, witness statements, to the alleged flow of funds related to the case.

"Meanwhile, other companies that have been examined are still in the status of witnesses because the deepening and proving process is still ongoing. It is not ruled out that some of the parties who are examined are actually victims of extortion or have not found sufficient evidence to increase their legal status," Adi said in a written statement, Wednesday, June 10, 2026.

Adi said that in the midst of the investigation process, there were speculations about the possibility of certain parties being protected due to their closeness to influential individuals. However, until now, the KPK has not given any information regarding the allegations.

Adi assessed that any alleged violation of ethics or abuse of authority should be tested through the available official mechanisms.

Adi also encouraged a forensic audit to be carried out on the flow of funds from a number of forwader to certain law enforcement officials, he considered that it could help provide a more objective picture of the parties involved.

"This step can also clearly distinguish between alleged bribes, gratuities, and extortion practices that may have occurred in the case," said Adi.

According to him, the case of extortion against a number of forwader allegedly carried out by certain law enforcement officers who are currently being controversial, is not only related to the legal aspect alone, but also concerns the level of public confidence in law enforcement institutions.

"When the public judges that the legal process is not transparent or consistent and is not focused, then trust in state institutions can decrease. In the long term, this condition has the potential to affect investors' perceptions of legal certainty and the business climate in Indonesia," he explained.

In addition, Adi continued, the perception of injustice in law enforcement can also create apathy in the community. The declining trust in the legal system risks weakening public participation in supporting efforts to eradicate corruption.

"Not only that, the low public trust can also have an impact on the quality of democracy. The success of the democratic system depends very much on the public's belief that the law is applied fairly without distinguishing one's background or position," said Adi.

Furthermore, Adi said that transparency in handling cases was an important factor in reducing speculation and maintaining the credibility of law enforcement institutions.

"This Customs case shows that in addition to strict law enforcement, information openness is also an important element in maintaining the legitimacy of state institutions. With a transparent and accountable process, public confidence in the legal system can continue to be maintained," he concluded.