Jakarta, IO – Twenty-five years of reformasi in Indonesia (1998-2023) still leaves much to be desired in regard to law enforcement, particularly corruption eradication. Indonesia’s war against corruption has ebbed and flowed over years. In January this year, antigraft NGO Transparency International (TI) released its latest global showing Indonesia’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) dropping to 34 from 38 a year prior. As a result, the country’s global ranking fell from 96 to 110 (out of 180 countries surveyed).
There are three reasons behind the decline in Indonesia’s CPI. First, assessment by the PRS Group, through its International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) report which monitors the practice of bribery in export-import activities and conflicts of interest between political and business sectors (down from 48 to 35). Second, findings from the Institute Management Development (IMD) published in their World Competitiveness Yearbook, in regard to bribery and corruption in the business sector (down from 44 to 39). Third, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) in their Asia Risk Guide report found that for corruption committed by public officials, Indonesia’s score was down from 32 to 29. These three indicators cannot be separated from the President Jokowi administration.
The subordinate relationship between politics and the economy is a crucial point in state administration practice. On the other hand, good governance – reflected in public service and actions by public officials free from corruption, collusion and nepotism – is a factor that affects Indonesia’s corruption perception index.
Eradicating corruption calls for schemes to establish a strong, solid and systemic corruption eradication system. According to Freidman (1975) in The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective, the legal system is composed of three key elements – legal substance, legal structure and legal culture. If corruption eradication is to implemented optimally, all three must be present.
In this context, legal substance serves as the basis to carry out concrete legal actions in eradicating corruption. This requires legal instruments, a necessity as a manifestation of the state’s commitment as well as political will on the part of the legislative body – the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President as the head of the executive branch to craft legal products pertaining to corruption eradication.
The passage of Law 19/2019 on the second amendment to Law 30/2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an example of a state’s legal policy that has weakened Indonesia’s anti-corruption drive. This shows that legal substance is the key in designing a legal system, including the one related to eradicating corruption.
The second element that is equally important is legal structure, especially in law enforcement as an important element in creating a strong and solid anti-corruption system. Law enforcement officials, especially the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the National Police (Polri) as well as the judiciary, must ensure that they are on the same page when it comes to commitment to eradicate corruption. A number of cases involving “bad apples” (oknum) in law enforcement institutions have posed a complex challenge in establishing strong anti-corruption systems. In other words, the rule of law will be impotent if its enforcement is left in the hands of bad apparatus.
The third element, legal culture, will ideally take root when the rule of law is upheld and the legal apparatus possesses integrity and conduct their work in a professional manner. Only then will there be concrete progress in corruption eradication efforts.
This article highlights the legal substance aspect which is the “face” of the state’s politics of law concerning corruption eradication in Indonesia. If we wish to eradicate corruption in a more optimal, systematic and organized manner, the state must provide the “ammunition” in the form of solid and strong legal instruments.
One of the legal instruments that has not been published for 25 years is none other than the asset forfeiture law. There is a high urgency and significance for the passage of this law in realizing the anti-corruption agenda in Indonesia. Corruption has morphed into a sophisticated crime that is increasingly difficult to prove, such as money laundering. The presence of a legal instrument in the form of an asset forfeiture law is meant to remove the key barriers in eradicating corruption. Empowering law enforcement institutions with the authority to confiscate assets suspected of being proceeds of crime has a solid and strong argument in accelerating corruption eradication in Indonesia, as it will send an unmistakable message that crime does not pay.