Oplus_131072
MUARA SABAK, bhayaksa.net– The handling of the alleged corruption case involving the misappropriation of subsidized solar fuel distribution for fishermen at the Kuala Jambi Fishermen’s Refueling Station (SPDN), East Tanjung Jabung Regency, is currently at a standstill regarding legal certainty. Although the East Tanjung Jabung District Attorney’s Office (Kejari) officially named three suspects on December 10, 2025, the case has not yet been submitted to trial as of September 2026. As a result of this protracted delay (undue delay), the enforcement of law in this matter appears to be floating, sparking allegations of omission by both authorized institutions, and leaving the suspects’ legal fate hanging without any clear status of guilt or acquittal.
The chronology of this stalled case begins systematically from the investigation phase exposed by the East Tanjung Jabung Kejari late last year. Based on initial evidence gathered by investigators, the Kejari announced an initial indication of state financial losses allegedly reaching Rp500 million. This figure was derived from the prosecutor’s indicative loss calculation method, which estimated the margin of the subsidized solar quota allegedly misappropriated alongside findings of suspected fictitious fisherman manifest coupons. Armed with this initial evidence, investigators concluded that the requirement of two valid legal proofs had been met to establish suspect status, including for a local Fisheries Department civil servant with the initials DS.
However, following the naming of the suspects, the progress of the case immediately struck a bureaucratic wall upon entering the state loss certification phase at the Representative Office of the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) for Jambi Province. Entering the ninth month, Jambi BPKP has yet to issue the Audit Result Report (LHA) on the Calculation of State Financial Losses (PKKN). This contradictory situation was directly confirmed by the Head of the Intelligence Section (Kasi Intel) of the East Tanjung Jabung Kejari, who stated that prosecutors are passively waiting for instructions and audit results from Jambi BPKP before drafting the indictment.
From the perspective of constitutional law and forensic accounting, Jambi BPKP’s insistence on not immediately issuing the LHA stems from the strict standards of proof required for material offenses. According to the Indonesian Government Internal Audit Standards (SAIPI), BPKP auditors are prohibited from issuing a report if the documents from investigators have not been declared to meet the Clean and Clear (CC) criteria. Unlike the attorney’s office which uses predictive figures, BPKP is legally obligated to prove losses that are actual and certain (actual loss). For the subsidized solar scandal, auditors must concretely verify physical evidence, starting from PT Pertamina’s Delivery Order (DO) documents, field sampling through direct confirmation interviews with hundreds of fishermen regarding alleged coupon forgery, to tracing cash flow documents to prove the alleged illicit sales above the subsidized price.
Although the step taken by the East Tanjung Jabung Kejari not to detain the suspects is legally justified under Article 21 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to avoid the expiration of the legal detention period, the nine-month bureaucratic delay is deemed to have violated the constitutional right to legal certainty. If both institutions remain trapped in this “ping-pong” of case files, these two government agencies are strongly suspected of committing multiple violations against prevailing positive law principles.
From the standpoint of administrative law, the Jambi Province BPKP Representative Office can be deemed to have violated the General Principles of Good Governance (AAUPB) as regulated under Law Number 30 of 2014, specifically the Principles of Scrutiny and Good Service, by letting the investigative audit assignment dangle without a clear timeframe. On the other hand, the East Tanjung Jabung Kejari investigative team is also indicated to have violated Article 50 of the KUHAP, which guarantees a suspect’s right to be immediately examined and brought before a court, and is suspected of flouting the Indonesian Prosecution Service Regulation Number 4 of 2024 concerning the Prosecutor’s Code of Conduct regarding the obligation to act professionally and accountably.
This uncertainty must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely. In accordance with the presumption of innocence (presumption of innocence), the legal status of the involved parties must be objectively tested through trial mechanisms. If during the forensic audit process the alleged state losses are later unproven and do not satisfy the material elements of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law (UU Tipikor), then by law, the prosecutor’s office must boldly take a stand by issuing a Warrant for the Termination of Investigation (SP3) and restore the reputation of the alleged suspects. Conversely, if proven true, the file must be immediately submitted to court so that a panel of judges can hand down a legally binding verdict (inkrah).To break through this information blockade, the public possesses the legal right to demand transparency. Based on Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Disclosure (UU KIP), citizens can submit an official letter to the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID) of Jambi BPKP to disclose the progress of file coordination. Furthermore, this alleged negligence or omission of the case at the regional level can be formally reported by the public to the Assistant for Supervision (Aswas) of the Jambi High Prosecutor’s Office, the Junior Attorney General for Supervision (Jamwas) at the Attorney General’s Office, and the Prosecution Commission of the Republic of Indonesia based on Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2011, ensuring that the integrity of law enforcement in East Tanjung Jabung Regency is transparently restored.
This uncertainty must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely. In accordance with the presumption of innocence (presumption of innocence), the legal status of the involved parties must be objectively tested through trial mechanisms. If during the forensic audit process the alleged state losses are later unproven and do not satisfy the material elements of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law (UU Tipikor), then by law, the prosecutor’s office must boldly take a stand by issuing a Warrant for the Termination of Investigation (SP3) and restore the reputation of the alleged suspects. Conversely, if proven true, the file must be immediately submitted to court so that a panel of judges can hand down a legally binding verdict (inkrah).
To break through this information blockade, the public possesses the legal right to demand transparency. Based on Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Disclosure (UU KIP), citizens can submit an official letter to the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID) of Jambi BPKP to disclose the progress of file coordination. Furthermore, this alleged negligence or omission of the case at the regional level can be formally reported by the public to the Assistant for Supervision (Aswas) of the Jambi High Prosecutor’s Office, the Junior Attorney General for Supervision (Jamwas) at the Attorney General’s Office, and the Prosecution Commission of the Republic of Indonesia based on Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2011, ensuring that the integrity of law enforcement in East Tanjung Jabung Regency is transparently restored.
Reporter: Harvery
Editor: bhayaksa.net Team
