Indramayu DPRD Allowance Corruption: Deputy Regent Detained

West Java Prosecutor’s Office has formally detained two of the three suspects in an alleged corruption case involving housing and transport allowances for the leadership and members of the Indramayu Regency Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) for the 2022–2025 budget years. The case is said to have caused state losses of Rp18.7 billion.

West Java prosecutors’ legal information chief, Nur Sricahyawijaya, said the two suspects were detained after undergoing six hours of questioning at the prosecutor’s office in Bandung. They are the then Indramayu DPRD speaker, identified as S, who now serves as Indramayu Deputy Regent, and former acting DPRD secretary IH.

The third suspect, Indramayu DPRD Secretary AF, was not questioned or detained on the same day after his lawyer submitted a doctor’s certificate and requested a postponement.

Sricahyawijaya said the detention of S and IH was authorised by warrants dated 21 October 2026 and was necessary for the investigation. They were placed in Bandung Class I State Detention Centre for 20 days, from 21 October to 9 November 2026.

The West Java Prosecutor’s Office investigation found that the alleged scheme began in September 2021, when S, then DPRD speaker, unilaterally initiated an increase in the housing and transport allowance budgets for 2022 without supporting documents and before a new appraisal had been carried out.

Under the proposal, monthly housing allowances were sharply raised to Rp30 million for the speaker, Rp28.5 million for the deputy speakers and Rp27 million for members of the Indramayu DPRD.

Monthly transport allowances were set at Rp25 million for the speaker, Rp20 million for deputy speakers and Rp17 million for members.

S then instructed IH, the acting DPRD secretary, to conduct a formal appraisal.

During a 2023 evaluation conducted by public appraisal firm KJPP Latief, Hanif and Rekan, DPRD Secretary AF allegedly prepared a letter signed by S that altered the draft allowance amounts, unlawfully increasing them by 15 per cent above the firm’s actual appraisal.