Experts Call for Institutional Overhaul and Management Approach in Corruption Eradication
A book review of ‘Memberantas Korupsi Sembari Korupsi’ (Eradicating Corruption While Corrupt) has prompted seven speakers to urge an evaluation of law enforcement institutions, stronger oversight, limits on the use of authority, and an improved anti-corruption strategy.
Former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) commissioner Saut Situmorang stated that the first issue requiring attention is the control mechanism. He argued that extensive authority without oversight can create room for conflicts of interest and abuse of power. Saut cited transparency, accountability, freedom from conflicts of interest, and fairness as four basic measures. ‘Transparent, accountable, free from conflicts of interest. Then fair,’ Saut said during the book review held at the Tempo Building in Jakarta on Monday, 10 August 2026. He stressed the importance of a code of ethics in preventing irregularities, noting that ethical violations left unchecked can escalate into criminal acts. Saut also questioned the KPK’s failure to fully utilise its authority in cases he believes met the criteria for the agency to take over, and even urged the government to restore the anti-corruption body’s strength.
Criminal law expert from the University of Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Chairul Huda, saw a need to reform the institutional design of corruption eradication. According to Chairul, the distribution of investigative authority for corruption cases among the police, the KPK, and the Attorney General’s Office creates coordination and control problems. ‘In my view, with the current pattern, there are at least three investigators for corruption offences: the police, the KPK, and the Attorney General’s Office. I think this is an inappropriate design,’ Chairul said. He proposed that corruption investigations be centralised within the KPK, with a horizontal oversight mechanism, while prosecutions would remain with the Attorney General’s Office. Chairul also assessed that the use of criminal law must be more orderly, questioning cases he believed were more appropriately handled under sectoral laws but were instead pursued under the Anti-Corruption Law.
Dahlan Iskan offered a different approach, suggesting the anti-corruption system requires management principles. He observed that the number of cases is overwhelming while the capacity of law enforcement officers is limited. ‘Corruption eradication has reached a stage of being overwhelmed,’ Dahlan said. He therefore urged the government to set primary targets and time-bound goals. ‘Successful management is management that has a priority scale and targets.’ Dahlan proposed making law enforcement officers the priority target for corruption eradication over a five-year period, after which the focus could shift to other groups.
Money laundering expert Yenti Garnasih argued that institutional reform must be accompanied by a change in investigative approach. She urged officers not to merely wait for reports or for a predicate crime to be proven before tracing suspected money laundering. According to Yenti, wealth inconsistent with a person’s profile can serve as an initial indicator, and reports from the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), banking transactions, and State Officials’ Wealth Reports (LHKPN) can be used to identify such indications. She also demanded that officers uncover all related predicate offences. ‘Uncover everything,’ she said.
Advocate and Kosmak Coordinator Petrus Selestinus stated that the demand on law enforcement is simple: the legal process must be based on law, not political interests. ‘Legal theories must be applied, statutory provisions must be applied,’ Petrus said. He added that Kosmak wants ongoing cases to be handled professionally and accountably, without arbitrary enforcement driven by political interests. Petrus noted that Kosmak had conducted investigations over approximately two years into six cases they deemed interconnected, forming the basis of the book being reviewed.
Former Constitutional Court Justice Maruar Siahaan assessed that reform would not succeed without strengthening the independence of the judiciary. He argued that judicial independence means not only freedom from political intervention but also freedom from influence, pressure, direction, and most critically, bribery. Maruar proposed that oversight of law enforcement institutions be conducted through audits, suggesting that the Judicial Commission, the National Police Commission (Kompolnas), and the Prosecutorial Commission should use audit methods to assess the performance of the institutions they oversee. He stated that such audits are essential to ensure law enforcement agencies are truly working according to their mandates.
University of Indonesia criminal law expert Ganjar Laksamana Bonaprapta welcomed the audit proposal but questioned who would be best suited to carry it out. He noted that law enforcement institutions already have their own oversight and audit mechanisms, but the challenge lies in conducting a comprehensive audit that can identify problems from upstream to downstream.