Legal Analysis of Suspect Designation of the Minister of Education in the Chromebook Laptop Procurement Corruption Case
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article examines the complex legal dimensions of the suspect designation of the former Minister of Education in the Chromebook procurement corruption case. It aims to clearly demarcate the critical boundary between legitimate public policy discretion and abuse of power implicating criminal liability. Utilizing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study analyzes both procedural and material aspects of the case. Procedurally, the suspect designation fulfills the minimum requirement of sufficient initial evidence through authentic documents and witness testimonies. Materially, the ministerial policy systematically locking technical specifications to a single operating system, deliberately ignoring internal technical studies, demonstrates a potential shift from valid discretion to an act of authority abuse. The required malicious intent is constructed from deliberate actions favoring specific corporations, while state loss is proven through absolute failure to achieve optimal value from money usage. This firmly establishes highly crucial modern Indonesian precedents.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
[1] TRT Global, “Kasus korupsi Rp1,98 triliun, Kejagung tahan Nadiem Makarim terkait pengadaan Chromebook,” TRT Global. [Online]. Available: https://trt.global/bahasa-indonesia/article/605600ff64f4
[2] A. Y. Lee-Chai and J. Bargh, Eds., The Use and Abuse of Power. Psychology Press, 2015. doi: 10.4324/9781315783055.
[3] Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), “Pengadaan Janggal, Usut Tuntas Korupsi Pengadaan Laptop Kementerian Pendidikan!,” Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW). [Online]. Available: https://antikorupsi.org/id/pengadaan-janggal-usut-tuntas-korupsi-pengadaan-laptop-kementerian-pendidikan
[4] M. Mawarni, G. Gamaputra, and S. D. Meilinda, “Penerapan Prinsip Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa melalui Aplikasi E-Purchasing dan E-Katalog,” Wacana Publik, vol. 14, no. 02, pp. 81–92, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.37295/wp.v14i02.50.
[5] N. F. Istiqlallia, R. Ardelia, and P. Ramadhanti, “Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Pejabat Pembuat Komitmen (Ppk) Dalam Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah,” Perspektif, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 129, May 2020, doi: 10.30742/perspektif.v25i2.722.
[6] J. Parchomiuk, “Abuse of Discretionary Powers in Administrative Law. Evolution of the Judicial Review Models: from ‘Administrative Morality’ to the Principle of Proportionality,” Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 453–478, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.5817/CPVP2018-3-4.
[7] F. N. Anggoro, “Pengujian unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang terhadap keputusan dan/atau tindakan pejabat pemerintahan oleh PTUN,” FIAT JUSTISIAJurnal Ilmu Huk., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 647–670, May 2017, doi: 10.25041/fiatjustisia.v10no4.803.
[8] S. Solechan, “Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik dalam Pelayanan Publik,” Adm. Law Gov. J., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 541–557, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.14710/alj.v2i3.541-557.
[9] A. Hidayat, “Tinjauan Hukum Praperadilan Atas Penetapan Tersangka,” Wacana Paramarta J. Ilmu Huk., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 7–14, 2023, doi: 10.32816/paramarta.v22i1.245.
[10] N. R. Hajdin, “The actus reus of the crime of aggression,” Leiden J. Int. Law, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 489–504, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1017/S0922156521000042.
[11] Antara News, “Hotman masih pertimbangkan ajukan praperadilan Nadiem Makarim,” Antara News. [Online]. Available: antaranews.com/berita/5094457/hotman-masih-pertimbangkan-ajukan-praperadilan-nadiem-makarim
[12] R. P. A. Ginanjar, “7 Poin Penjelasan Nadiem Makarim Soal Dugaan Korupsi Laptop Chromebook,” Tempo. [Online]. Available: https://www.tempo.co/hukum/-7-poin-penjelasan-nadiem-makarim-soal-dugaan-korupsi-laptop-chromebook-1674219
[13] R. Susilawaty, T. Eddy, and A. Sahari, “Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Perbuatan Mark-up Oleh Panitia Pengadaan Barang Dan Jasa Dalam Proyek Pemerintah,” J. Educ. Hum. Soc. Sci., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 91–96, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.34007/jehss.v3i1.198.
[14] S. Idris, Y. Kadir, and R. W. Amu, “Analisis Hukum Penyelesaian Kerugian Negara Ditinjau Dalam Perspektif Hukum Pidana,” J. Evid. Law, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 91–105, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.59066/jel.v2i3.359.
[15] V. Topchii, S. Zadereiko, G. Didkivska, O. Bodunova, and D. Shevchenko, “International Anti-Corruption Standards,” Balt. J. Econ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 277–286, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.30525/2256-0742/2021-7-5-277-286.
[16] R. Glendinning, “The Concept of Value for Money,” Int. J. Public Sect. Manag., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 42–50, Jan. 1988, doi: 10.1108/eb002926.