The naming of Hery Susanto, Chair of the Indonesian Ombudsman, as a suspect for alleged corruption is shocking as it is concerning. An institution, which was established to oversee public services, has been embroiled in a case of abused authority. This must be thoroughly investigated and used to spur on reforms of the internal system so that this alleged embezzlement does not happen again.
The Indonesian Ombudsman was born from the spirit of the Reformasi. Through Law No. 37/2008, the institution was mandated to supervise public services provided by ministries, regional governments, state-owned enterprises, and other institutions vital to the public interest. It was designed as an external supervisor for a bureaucracy that is often sluggish and opaque.
Its main function is to ensure that public service remains fair, transparent, non-discriminatory, and free from maladministration. The Ombudsman's weapons are its recommendations and investigation reports (LHP), which government agencies are legally obligated to follow. Because it can correct government policy, the authority they carry is immense.
It is precisely at that point that Hery's case took a serious turn. The case involves an LPH regarding the Ministry of Forestry's tax payment obligations to Toshida Indonesia. In the report, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been administrative misconduct in the determination of non-tax state revenues from the company's forest area utilization permit. As a result, the payment obligation, which had originally been set at Rp140 billion (US$8.24 million), was revised.
The Attorney General's Office (AGO) alleges that after the report was issued, Rp1.5 billion (US$88,200) was paid to Hery, who was then a member of the 2021-2026 Ombudsman overseeing the energy sector. If these allegations are proven true, the damage extends far beyond one man's reputation – it shatters the very credibility of the nation's supervisory body.
The AGO's move in uncovering this case and arresting Hery Susanto deserves support. However, the legal process must be closely monitored to ensure it remains a pure act of law enforcement, rather than a vehicle for other interests. The integrity of the prosecution is just as vital as the integrity of the institution under investigation.
This case also exposes a flaw in the institution's design. Granting immense power to influence public policy is far too risky when it rests in the hands of only one or two individuals. Opaque "dark rooms" are easily opened when strategic decisions are not built upon a transparent, collective mechanism.
Therefore, the authority of the institution to draw up and issue LHPs should be exercised in a collegial fashion by all the members of the Ombudsman. While a collective system is no absolute guarantee against corruption, it creates a system of checks and balances and narrows the window for backroom deals.
Improvements must also target the selection process of the Ombudsman members. Like many independent institutions, the selection of members of the Ombudsman is in the hands of the House of Representatives. As long as this process is dominated by the logic of sharing out political appointments, the quality of the institution will remain fragile.
It is no secret that candidates close to the parties often have a better chance than those with integrity. A selection process based on short-term political leanings damages the credibility of the Ombudsman. This is despite the fact that the institution is mandated to supervise the bureaucracy independently, even when this means it is at odds with the government.
Indonesia needs an Ombudsman respected for its authority, not suspected because of its transactions. Correcting the supervisor is a precondition for public services to once again have a trustworthy guardian.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2101379/reforming-the-public-services-watchdo