A Series of Problems Behind the Repeated Extortion by Regional Heads

Corruption practices at the regional head level are recurring with nearly identical patterns, namely extorting subordinates. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has recently named Tulungagung Regent Gatut Sunu Wibowo as a suspect in an alleged extortion case within the Tulungagung Regency Government, East Java. Gatut is the second regent arrested by the KPK for allegedly extorting funds to meet Eid al-Fitr Bonus (THR) needs ahead of Eid al-Fitr 1447 Hijriah/2026 AD. Throughout 2026, the KPK has conducted six hand arrest operations (OTT) against regional heads. Despite repeated prohibitions and ongoing enforcement, these cases seem to form an unbroken cycle. This phenomenon raises a fundamental question: Why does regional head corruption keep recurring? Executive Director of the Regional Autonomy Implementation Monitoring Committee (KPPOD), Arman Suparman, believes the repetition of these cases reveals that this is a systemic problem. It does not only occur downstream but also upstream in various aspects. First, in local policy governance, including the procurement of goods and services. He assesses that although goods and services procurement is now electronic-based via e-catalogue and e-procurement, the system still fails to address behind-the-scenes collusive practices. Arman opines that this electronic-based procurement of goods and services needs reinforcement with other variables, one of which is law enforcement that can provide a deterrent effect for perpetrators. Another method is through weighting or feedback from the beneficiary community, or service recipients in the regions. Because so far, the assessment of regional revenue and expenditure budget (APBD) management results is limited to an unqualified opinion audit (WTP) from the Financial Audit Board (BPK), which is merely administrative. “Therefore, we advocate that in the future, for example, in the regional development reporting process, whether related to regional government administration or regional financial management, those reports should not only provide space for regional governments to report but also space for the public to participate in providing assessments,” Arman said when contacted by Kompas.com on Monday (13/4/2026). “So there is special weighting from the public for regional development reports and also regional financial reports,” he added. This practice can occur because regional heads are personnel development officials with significant authority to carry out mutations, promotions, and demotions of positions in their respective areas. This practically creates patronage—a socio-political relationship where an influential individual (patron) provides support, protection, or material benefits in the form of money and positions to weaker parties. “This condition explains why cases like in Cilacap and now in Tulungagung, the department heads or regional officials so easily submit to the regional head’s wishes. Because, as mentioned, the regional head is the personnel development official,” Arman stated. However, looking deeper, Arman reveals that the main problem does not actually lie in the authority held by regional heads as personnel development officials. In fact, the merit system is already clearly regulated in the Civil Service Law (UU ASN) and the Government Regulation (PP) on ASN Management.