{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1813057,
        "msgid": "kpk-assures-no-duplication-of-mbg-governance-case-what-does-it-mean-1781887942",
        "date": "2026-06-19 22:44:35",
        "title": "KPK Assures No Duplication of MBG Governance Case, What Does It Mean?",
        "author": "",
        "source": "DETIK",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has confirmed it will not duplicate the Attorney General's Office's investigation into alleged corruption in the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme. Instead, the KPK will focus on its preventive role by monitoring the implementation of its eight-point review, which identified significant regulatory and oversight deficiencies in the programme's governance. The commission emphasised that comprehensive anti-corruption efforts require both legal enforcement and systemic prevention to ensure strategic government programmes are accountable and free from graft.",
        "content": "<p>The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has assured it will not\nduplicate the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) governance case currently\nbeing handled by the Attorney General\u2019s Office (Kejagung). The KPK has\nchosen to focus on the findings of its review of the programme.<\/p>\n<p>KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo stated that the commission respects\nthe legal steps and processes underway at the Kejagung. He said the KPK\nadheres to the principle that law enforcement processes must be carried\nout effectively and efficiently to provide legal certainty.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn line with this principle, the KPK does not duplicate law\nenforcement processes for cases already handled by other law enforcement\nagencies,\u201d Budi explained to reporters on Friday (19\/6\/2026).<\/p>\n<p>Budi noted that the KPK not only carries out enforcement functions\nbut also has a duty to conduct prevention. Therefore, he said, the KPK\nwill focus on the review it has already conducted regarding improvements\nto the MBG programme\u2019s governance.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt must be understood that the KPK\u2019s role and duties in this issue\nare not solely on the enforcement aspect. The KPK has previously\nconducted a review and identified various potential corruption risks\nrelated to the programme\u2019s governance,\u201d Budi revealed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor this reason, the KPK will continue to monitor and coordinate\nwith ministries, agencies, and relevant parties to follow up on the\nrecommendations from the review that have been submitted,\u201d he\ncontinued.<\/p>\n<p>He explained that anti-corruption efforts are considered complete not\nonly when the legal process is finished, but also through strengthening\nthe prevention system. This is to ensure that potential irregularities\ndo not recur.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTherefore, following up on governance improvement recommendations is\nan important part of ensuring that strategic government programmes can\nrun effectively, accountably, and free from corrupt practices,\u201d he\nstated.<\/p>\n<p>He also confirmed that the KPK will continue to support every law\nenforcement effort and governance system improvement undertaken by\nstakeholders. This is part of a shared commitment to realising\ntransparent and high-integrity state financial management.<\/p>\n<p>For context, the KPK had conducted a review and monitoring of the MBG\nprogramme before the Kejagung handled the alleged corruption case in MBG\ngovernance, which ultimately named three former leaders of the National\nNutrition Agency (BGN) as suspects.<\/p>\n<p>In its review and monitoring, the KPK identified eight points\nrequiring improvement in MBG governance. These eight findings were\ndetailed by the KPK\u2019s Monitoring Directorate.<\/p>\n<p>The KPK explained that the large scale of the programme and its\nbudget had not been matched by an adequate regulatory framework,\ngovernance, and oversight mechanisms. The following are the KPK\u2019s eight\nfindings regarding MBG governance:<\/p>\n<ol type=\"1\">\n<li><p>Regulations for MBG implementation are inadequate, particularly\nin governing programme governance from planning and execution to\ncross-ministerial\/institutional and local government oversight.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>MBG implementation through the Government Assistance (Banper)\nmechanism creates risks of extended bureaucratic chains, potential\nrent-seeking, and reduced food budget portions due to operational and\nrental cost deductions.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>A centralised approach with the BGN as the sole actor\nmarginalises the role of local governments and weakens checks and\nbalances in determining partners, kitchen locations, and\nsupervision.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>High potential for conflicts of interest (CoI) in determining\nSPPG\/kitchen partners due to centralised authority and unclear\nSOPs.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>Weak transparency and accountability, especially in the\nverification and validation of partner foundations, determination of\nkitchen locations, and financial reporting and accountability.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>Many kitchens do not meet SPPG technical standards, resulting in\nfood poisoning cases in various regions.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>Food safety oversight is not optimal, with minimal involvement of\nlocal Health Offices and the Food and Drug Supervisory Agency (BPOM)\naccording to their authority.<\/p><\/li>\n<li><p>There are no indicators for the success of the MBG programme,\neither short-term or long-term, nor has a baseline measurement of\nnutritional status and beneficiary academic achievement been\nconducted.<\/p><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The KPK subsequently provided recommendations for the MBG programme,\nnamely:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Formulate comprehensive and binding implementation regulations, at\nleast at the Presidential Regulation level, to govern planning,\nimplementation, supervision, and the division of roles across\nministries\/institutions and local governments.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Review the Government Assistance mechanism, including the cost\nstructure, implementation chain, and fairness of budget components, to\nprevent rent-seeking and a decline in nutritional service quality.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Implement a collaborative and limited decentralised approach by\nstrengthening the role of local governments in determining\nbeneficiaries, kitchen locations, and operational supervision.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Clarify SOPs and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for appointing\nfoundation\/SPPG partners, and ensure the selection, verification, and\nvalidation process is conducted transparently and accountably.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Strengthen food safety oversight through the active involvement of\nlocal Health Offices and BPOM in certification, kitchen inspections, and\nfood quality control.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Build a standardised financial reporting and verification system to\nprevent fictitious reports, mark-ups, and irregularities in fund\ndisbursement.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Establish measurable MBG success indicators, accompanied by\nbaseline measurements of nutritional status and beneficiary achievements\nas a basis for continuous programme impact evaluation.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/kpk-assures-no-duplication-of-mbg-governance-case-what-does-it-mean-1781887942",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}