Charges Dropped Against Contract Teacher for Working Secondary Job: Attorney General's Office Explains Rationale

Case Against Contract Teacher Accused of Working a Second Job Dropped: Attorney General’s Office Explains its Reasoning

• Foe Peace/VIVA

Jakarta, VIVA – The latest development has emerged in the case of a contract teacher in Probolinggo, East Java, who was named a suspect and detained simply for working a second job as a Village Local Facilitator (PLD).

The East Java High Prosecutor’s Office has officially halted the investigation into the case involving Mohammad Hisabul Huda, a contract teacher at SDN Brabe 1 in Maron sub-district. The decision was made by prioritising a restorative justice approach.

“This case has been halted by the investigators at the East Java High Prosecutor’s Office,” said the Head of the Public Information Centre of the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office, Anang Supriatna, on Wednesday, 25 February 2026.

According to him, the investigation was halted because Huda was deemed to be unaware of the prohibition against receiving salaries from two sources of state funds while holding dual positions.

“Specifically, regarding this village fund and the facilitator role, it is not allowed to hold a dual position where one comes from the regional or state budget. He simply didn’t know; he was just looking for a side job,” he said.

In addition to the factor of ignorance, another consideration was the reimbursement of state losses. Huda is said to have returned Rp118 million that he had previously received. Furthermore, Huda has also been released from detention since Friday, 20 February 2026.

“It must be persuasive. Especially now that he has returned the money and we released him last Friday. We responded quickly, and the case has now been taken over by the East Java High Prosecutor’s Office,” he added.

Previously, it was reported that a contract teacher, Muhammad Misbahul Huda, was named a suspect by the Probolinggo District Prosecutor’s Office for working a second job as a PLD.

The prosecutors argued that Misbahul had committed corruption by receiving payment from two jobs, both of which were funded by the state budget. Based on the prosecutor’s calculations, he is suspected of causing a loss of Rp118 million to the state due to this second job.