Feri Amsari – The bombshell revelation that Indonesia's General Elections Commission (KPU) members have chartered a private jet for official trips has further eroded public confidence in the electoral body.
The incident adds to a growing list of controversies involving KPU commissioners, ranging from corruption and electoral fraud to sexual misconduct and displays of opulent lifestyles – behaviours widely seen as unbecoming of public officials entrusted with safeguarding democratic processes.
A closer look at the private jet rental scandal reveals deeper concerns about the questionable professionalism of the electoral commission. Why did the KPU opt for an exclusive and luxurious aircraft like the Embraer Legacy 650? Could such extravagant spending practices be part of the reason why Indonesia's elections are perceived as excessively costly, as suggested by scholars?
The private jet brouhaha
KPU claimed that chartering a private jet was necessary to expedite the delivery of election logistics to Indonesia's frontier, outermost, and underdeveloped regions (known as 3T areas). However, this justification was undermined by the findings of the Election Organisers' Ethics Council (DKPP) in Decision 178-PKE-DKPP/VII/2025.
Of the jet's 59 flight routes, only 30 percent were directed to 3T regions – and none were related to logistical operations. The remaining 70 percent of flights served international destinations and major cities such as Kuala Lumpur, Bali, Surabaya, Samarinda, and Riau.
The questionable flight routes came at a staggering cost of 90 billion rupiah (AUD$8.2 million) – an amount that dwarfs essential election expenditures. To put this in perspective, the combined procurement of 3.2 million voting booths and 1.6 million bottles of indelible ink amounted to just 71.56 billion rupiah. The disparity raises troubling questions about fiscal priorities and the prudent use of public funds in managing Indonesia's democratic processes.
The ethical and criminal violations surrounding the private jet rental are not difficult to substantiate – especially given the transparency of Indonesia's public procurement system, accessible through the General Procurement Plan Information System (SIRUP).
Leveraging this platform, Transparency International Indonesia (TII), Themis Indonesia Law Firm, and Trend Asia uncovered irregularities in the procurement process of the private jet service. Their findings, based on publicly available data, have been formally submitted to the DKPP and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for further investigation.
Potential graft investigations
Article 3 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections outlines eleven guiding principles that the KPU is legally bound to uphold: independence, honesty, fairness, legal certainty, orderliness, transparency, proportionality, professionalism, accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency.
The decision to charter a private luxury jet stands in stark contrast to these principles, revealing a troubling disregard for the ethical framework of electoral governance. In fact, the jet scandal reflects at least four distinct violations committed by the KPU, each raising serious questions about its institutional integrity and public accountability.
The first violation concerns the KPU's lack of honesty. During proceedings before DKPP, the KPU claimed it had flown only 35 routes using the private jet. In reality, court records revealed 59 separate flight paths. The commission also justified the jet rental by citing the need to deliver election logistics to Indonesia's frontier and underdeveloped regions (3T). However, flight data contradicted this claim. The logistics distribution phase concluded between January 17 and February 13, 2024, while the jet rental agreement spanned from January to June 2024.
Not a single flight route was linked to logistics delivery. Instead, the jet was used for activities such as warehouse monitoring, technical training for polling station officers (KPPS), post-election institutional capacity building, disbursement of compensation to ad-hoc election workers, and preparations for a repeat vote (PSU) in Kuala Lumpur.
The second violation concerns the KPU's failure to uphold the principles of professionalism and accountability. The private jet rental contract was awarded to PT. Alfalima Cakrawala Indonesia – a newly established company founded in 2022, just two years before the election.
Despite its limited track record, the firm secured a multi-billion rupiah tender. According to the official website of Indonesia's National Public Procurement Agency (LKPP), PT. Alfalima is classified as a small enterprise, which typically would not qualify for such large-scale government contracts. Moreover, the company had no prior experience handling public tenders. Remarkably, the company ceased operations shortly after the election concluded – raising further concerns about the legitimacy and oversight of the procurement process.
The third violation concerns the KPU's disregard for the principles of legal certainty, procedural order, effectiveness, and efficiency. The jet rental clearly contravenes two key regulations: Ministry of Finance Regulation 119 of 2023; and 113/PMK.05/2012 on Domestic Official Travel for State Officials, Civil Servants, and Non-Permanent Employees. These provisions strictly permit the use of commercial flights, limited to business and economy class.
Not a single clause authorises institutional leaders – whether chairpersons, deputies, or members of state bodies – to charter private jets. What justified the KPU's decision to bypass these rules, positioning itself above the travel standards applied to the leadership of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Senate (DPD), the Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Court?
In addition to violating core principles of electoral governance, the private jet rental scandal may constitute an act of corruption. The DKPP ruling revealed a price discrepancy of over 19 billion rupiah – exceeding the approved budget allocation for the rental – with no clear explanation for its use. The KPK is currently reviewing the case following the DKPP's decision, although civil society groups had already flagged the irregularities prior to the ethics proceedings.
A slap on the wrist
Although the KPU was found to have violated multiple principles of electoral governance, the DKPP's ruling appeared remarkably lenient. Five of the seven commissioners, along with the KPU Secretary General, received only a "Severe Warning."
This is particularly troubling given that all KPU members had previously been sanctioned with a "Final Severe Warning" for earlier ethical violations. Logically, a repeat offense following a final warning should have resulted in dismissal. The failure to escalate sanctions not only undermines the authority of the DKPP but also signals a dangerous tolerance for repeated misconduct within electoral institutions.
The DKPP's lenient sanctions against election organisers have done little to improve the quality of Indonesia's democratic process. These measures seem more like symbolic gestures – intended to placate public outrage – than meaningful steps toward reform.
Meanwhile, those responsible remain free to commit further violations without consequence. The analogy is clear: just as the competence of a pilot determines the safety of a flight, the professionalism and capacity of KPU commissioners directly shape the integrity of elections. An unqualified pilot endangers lives; likewise, unfit electoral leadership jeopardises the democratic journey.
No wonder Indonesia's elections remain in disarray.