The Search of the Ombudsman Office and the Test of Institutional Integrity

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The search of the office of the Ombudsman Republic Indonesia by investigators from the Kejaksaan Agung Republic Indonesia has drawn significant public attention. An institution known for supervising public services is now involved in a legal investigation. This situation raises questions among the public regarding the integrity of state institutions and the effectiveness of the existing oversight system.

The Ombudsman plays an important role in monitoring public services and handling public complaints related to maladministration by government institutions. Therefore, when this supervisory institution becomes part of a legal investigation, public trust may be affected. People may begin to question how an institution responsible for oversight could become involved in a law enforcement process.

However, the action taken by the Attorney General’s Office can also be seen as a demonstration of law enforcement that does not discriminate. In a state governed by the rule of law, no institution or individual is above the law. If there are allegations that certain parties are involved in a case, investigators have the authority to conduct searches and examinations to uncover the facts.

This case also highlights that the fight against corruption in Indonesia remains complex. Corruption often involves broad networks that may include private actors as well as public institutions. In such situations, law enforcement agencies must work professionally, transparently, and based on strong evidence so that the legal process can proceed fairly and without creating unnecessary speculation in society.

At the same time, the public should observe this case objectively while upholding the principle of the presumption of innocence. Legal processes must be allowed to run their course without excessive pressure or premature conclusions. If violations of the law are proven, those responsible must be held accountable according to existing regulations. Conversely, if no sufficient evidence is found, the reputation of the institution concerned should be restored.

This incident should serve as a moment of reflection for all state institutions to strengthen their internal integrity systems. Transparency, accountability, and ethical standards among public officials must remain priorities in carrying out governmental duties. By doing so, public trust in state institutions can be maintained.

Ultimately, strengthening institutional integrity is essential to building clean and credible governance. Public trust is a fundamental asset for ensuring that oversight, public service, and law enforcement functions operate effectively in Indonesia. Without that trust, efforts to create good governance will be difficult to achieve.

By : K&Co - March 9, 2026

Alert Status 1 and the Test of Civilian Supremacy in Indonesia

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The recent instruction by the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) leadership to enter Alert Status 1 has sparked a serious public debate. Civil society organizations argue that this policy is not only procedurally problematic but may also contradict constitutional principles. This criticism should not be dismissed as mere political polemic; rather, it serves as an important reminder about the relationship between the military, the state, and democracy in Indonesia.

The Civil Society Coalition for Security Sector Reform considers the instruction inconsistent with the constitution because military deployment is fundamentally under the authority of the President, as the highest commander of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, according to the 1945 Constitution. They also cite Law No. 34 of 2004 on the TNI, which stipulates that decisions regarding military deployment are vested in the President, not the TNI Commander.

From a state‑administration perspective, this criticism has solid grounding. In a modern democracy, the military must be under civilian oversight. Civilian supremacy is not only about formal command but also about accountability and political legitimacy. When decisions that could mobilize military forces are made without clear communication from the highest civilian authority, public concern is entirely understandable.

Furthermore, the civil society coalition questioned the urgency of declaring Alert Status 1. According to them, the current national security situation is still under the control of civilian government and law enforcement agencies, and there is no immediate threat to national sovereignty requiring widespread military mobilization.

The question of urgency is crucial. Alert Status 1 represents the highest level of military readiness, meaning troops and equipment are fully prepared for deployment. Without transparent explanations, this policy leaves room for speculation. In a democratic state, sensitive security policies require clear public communication to avoid unnecessary fear or suspicion.

Indonesia’s historical experience with military dominance in politics during the New Order era makes this issue particularly sensitive. The 1998 Reformasi period marked a major shift, separating military roles from civilian affairs and emphasizing TNI professionalism as a national defense institution. Any policy that blurs the line between military and civilian authority naturally triggers public sensitivity.

These concerns are not baseless. In recent years, debates about the TNI’s involvement in civilian roles and non‑combat operations have resurfaced, raising fears that security sector reform is not fully entrenched.

Nevertheless, civil society criticism should not be interpreted as being anti-military. On the contrary, such scrutiny is a vital mechanism in democracy to ensure that the military remains professional and operates within constitutional boundaries. A strong military in a democracy is not one above civilian control, but one whose legitimacy stems from adherence to law and democratic principles.

Ultimately, this controversy highlights the importance of transparency and public communication by both the government and the TNI. Clear explanations regarding the reasons, objectives, and legal basis for Alert Status 1 are necessary to prevent misunderstandings.

If managed well, this debate could strengthen Indonesia’s democracy. Civil society oversight, open government response, and adherence to the constitution form the foundation to ensure that the relationship between the military and the state remains firmly within democratic norms.

By : K&Co - March 9, 2026

Indonesia’s 25-Day Fuel Reserve as a Warning for National Energy Security

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The statement by Indonesia’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, Bahlil Lahadalia, that the country’s fuel reserves can only last around 20–25 days should be taken as a serious warning about the fragility of Indonesia’s energy security. For a country with a large population, growing economic activity, and heavy reliance on fossil fuels, such a reserve level is relatively low. This situation is not merely a technical issue related to storage capacity but also reflects deeper structural challenges in the management of the nation’s energy system.

When compared with many other countries, the standard for strategic oil reserves is generally much higher. Several nations maintain energy reserves that can cover around 90 days of consumption as a precaution against potential disruptions in global supply. Such disruptions may arise from geopolitical conflicts, economic crises, or natural disasters that interfere with energy distribution routes. In these situations, countries with larger reserves are better positioned to maintain economic and social stability.

Indonesia actually possesses considerable natural energy resources. However, over the years, national energy demand has continued to rise alongside population growth and economic development. At the same time, domestic oil production has gradually declined and is no longer able to fully meet the country’s needs. As a result, Indonesia has become increasingly dependent on imported fuel. This dependence makes the nation more vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices as well as disruptions in international supply chains.

In his remarks, Bahlil emphasized that the main issue lies not only in the availability of oil but also in the limited storage infrastructure. In other words, even if the government intends to increase the national fuel reserve, the current storage facilities are not sufficient to accommodate a larger supply. This indicates that energy infrastructure development in the past may have focused more on distribution and consumption while paying less attention to strategic reserve capacity.

The government’s plan to develop larger fuel storage facilities should therefore be appreciated as an important initial step toward addressing this problem. If Indonesia manages to expand its storage capacity so that reserves can cover up to three months of consumption, the country’s energy security would become significantly stronger. Adequate reserves are crucial not only for responding to global crises but also for helping the government stabilize domestic fuel prices when international markets experience volatility.

However, building storage infrastructure alone will not be enough. Indonesia also needs to accelerate the diversification of its energy sources by developing renewable energy such as solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy, and bioenergy. This strategy is essential for gradually reducing the country’s dependence on petroleum. In addition, policies promoting energy efficiency must be strengthened so that national energy consumption can be managed more responsibly.

The issue of a 25-day fuel reserve should not be viewed merely as a temporary technical problem but rather as an opportunity to conduct a broader evaluation of Indonesia’s national energy strategy. Energy security is a fundamental component of national resilience. Without a strong and sustainable energy system, economic stability and long-term development could be put at risk.

Therefore, the government should treat this issue as a strategic priority. Investment in energy infrastructure, expansion of strategic reserves, and acceleration of the transition toward cleaner energy sources must move forward simultaneously. If these measures are implemented consistently, Indonesia will not only strengthen its energy security but also ensure more sustainable national development in the future.

By : K&Co - March 5, 2026

Greater Transparency in Share Ownership as a Step Toward a Stronger Capital Market

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The recent policy allowing broader public access to share ownership information in Indonesia’s capital market marks an important step toward improving transparency and governance. Under the new rule, information about shareholders who own more than 1 percent of shares in publicly listed companies can now be accessed by the public. This initiative is part of efforts by regulators and market institutions such as Indonesia Stock Exchange and Indonesia Central Securities Depository under the supervision of the Financial Services Authority to improve the quality of information available to investors.

Previously, public disclosure generally focused on shareholders who owned more than 5 percent of a company’s shares. By lowering the disclosure threshold to 1 percent, the structure of share ownership becomes far more transparent and detailed. This change allows investors, analysts, and the public to gain deeper insights into who actually holds significant influence within listed companies.

Transparency is a fundamental pillar of a healthy capital market. In the investment world, information is one of the most valuable assets. Investors rely heavily on accurate and accessible data to understand company structures, identify potential risks, and evaluate corporate governance practices. When information about significant shareholders is easily available, investors can make more rational and informed investment decisions rather than relying solely on speculation or market rumors.

Moreover, increased transparency may help strengthen investor confidence, particularly among international investors. Global investors often view transparency and strong governance standards as key indicators of a reliable financial market. By adopting policies that promote openness, Indonesia demonstrates its commitment to improving market credibility and aligning itself with international best practices. This could also support the country’s efforts to enhance its standing within global market indexes and attract more foreign investment into the national capital market.

However, while greater transparency brings many benefits, it also presents certain challenges. On the positive side, open access to ownership information can improve accountability and reduce opportunities for market manipulation or hidden control structures within companies. Investors can more easily detect concentration of ownership, potential conflicts of interest, or unusual accumulation of shares by certain parties.

On the other hand, some observers argue that excessive disclosure could potentially be exploited by market speculators. Detailed ownership data might enable certain market players to monitor the strategies of major investors and react quickly in ways that create volatility. For this reason, transparency must always be accompanied by strong regulatory oversight and monitoring to ensure that the information is used responsibly.

Another important factor is investor education. Making data publicly available does not automatically mean that all investors will be able to interpret it effectively. Many retail investors still rely heavily on trends, social media discussions, or informal recommendations rather than conducting thorough analysis. The availability of detailed ownership information should therefore be supported by broader financial literacy initiatives so that investors can use the data wisely and productively.

Furthermore, greater transparency may encourage better corporate governance among publicly listed companies. When ownership structures are visible to the public, companies and major shareholders are more likely to act responsibly and consider the reputational impact of their decisions. Public scrutiny can serve as an additional layer of accountability, encouraging more ethical and strategic management practices.

In conclusion, the policy to open access to share ownership information above 1 percent represents a positive development for Indonesia’s capital market. By strengthening transparency, the market can become more credible, efficient, and attractive to investors. Nevertheless, the success of this policy will depend not only on data disclosure but also on effective supervision, investor education, and the commitment of all market participants to maintain integrity within the financial system.

By : K&Co - March 5, 2026

Rupiah Under Pressure : A Test of Indonesia’s Economic Resilience

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The Middle East conflict has flared up again after attacks on Iran, sending shockwaves through global financial markets. Investors are flocking to safe-haven assets like the US dollar and gold, leaving emerging markets, including Indonesia, vulnerable. The rupiah has felt the impact, weakening against the dollar in recent trading sessions.

In this situation, the role of Bank Indonesia is crucial. BI has pledged to maintain rupiah stability through interventions in the foreign exchange market, including spot transactions and derivative instruments. This is not just a technical routine—it signals that the state is ready to uphold economic stability amid global uncertainty.

Many might wonder: why does a conflict in the Middle East affect the rupiah? The answer lies in global financial interconnectedness. When geopolitical risks rise, investors tend to reduce exposure to emerging-market assets and move capital into what they perceive as safer assets, like the US dollar. This increases demand for the dollar while putting downward pressure on currencies like the rupiah.

However, it is important to note that the rupiah’s weakening in this context does not necessarily reflect weak domestic fundamentals. Rather, it is a sentiment-driven reaction. As long as inflation is controlled, foreign reserves are sufficient, and economic growth remains stable, external pressures are usually temporary.

This is where the credibility of the central bank is tested. BI is not just managing exchange rates; it is maintaining market confidence. When markets trust that the central bank has the tools and willingness to act, volatility can be mitigated. Confidence, in modern financial systems, is the most valuable currency.

Of course, interventions are not a long-term solution to all external pressures. Rupiah stability also depends on the strength of Indonesia’s domestic economy. Diversifying exports, reducing energy import dependency, and strengthening industrial and downstream sectors are crucial to lowering vulnerability to external shocks.

Global conflicts are beyond Indonesia’s control. The country cannot stop wars or dictate international politics. But what it can control is policy response and the resilience of its economic system. With careful, measured, and consistent policies, external shocks can be absorbed without triggering a crisis.

This moment should also serve as a reminder: economic stability is not automatic. It is built on fiscal discipline, credible monetary policy, and public trust. When these are balanced, even global turbulence cannot easily shake domestic foundations.

Pressure on the rupiah from international conflicts is real and should not be ignored—but panic is not the answer. What is needed is vigilance, coordinated policy, and clear communication to the public.

Ultimately, this is about more than just exchange rates. It is a test of Indonesia’s economic resilience in an increasingly uncertain world. With strong fundamentals, global storms can be weathered. With weak foundations, even minor shocks can escalate into major crises.

Right now, that test is underway.

By : K&Co - March 2, 2026

Internet Quota : A Right or Just an Active Period?

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

The recent decision by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court to reject the judicial review against the unilateral internet quota expiration scheme marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over digital rights, consumer protection, and regulatory fairness in the digital economy. While the ruling might reflect judicial restraint and deference to legislative discretion, it also highlights a broader challenge: ensuring that laws keep pace with how modern society uses digital resources and how these resources have become essential to daily life and livelihood.

At the core of the case were consumers — including a ride-hailing driver and a food vendor — who argued that unused internet data, once paid for, should not simply vanish without clear justification or compensation. For many digital service users today, internet data is not a luxury; it is a tool of trade, essential to earning income and staying connected. In this context, losing unused data because of arbitrary time limits imposed by service providers feels, understandably, like a loss of both value and justice.

Critics of the current system have drawn comparisons to prepaid electricity tokens, where unused kilowatt-hours can be consumed at any later time without expiry. The logic is compelling: if customers pay in advance for a quantifiable good, they should retain access to that good until it is exhausted, regardless of arbitrary time constraints. While telecommunications and energy operate on different technical frameworks, the public perception of fairness can’t be ignored.

The Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the review does not mean the issue is unimportant — it simply delays a possible substantive debate on how consumers are protected under evolving digital service models. The ruling might signal that the Court believes legislative judgment should stand unless it clearly violates constitutional guarantees. However, unanswered questions about consumer rights, economic fairness, and how digital services are regulated remain pressing.

One of the central concerns is the power imbalance between telecommunications companies and everyday users. Operators, under the current framework, retain significant discretionary authority to design products and expiration schemes. Meanwhile, users shoulder the consequences, often with limited options or awareness of how these schemes are structured. This imbalance is symptomatic of a broader issue in digital consumer markets: regulations often lag behind market innovation, leaving consumers exposed.

Economists and consumer advocates also warn that while mandatory data rollover or refund schemes might impose costs on operators, these should be examined within a broader social lens. Digital access has become intertwined with access to economic opportunity, education, and civic participation. If data expiration policies disproportionately affect low-income users who cannot afford frequent renewals, then regulatory frameworks should evolve to protect equitable access.

Ultimately, the Constitutional Court’s refusal to revise the law should not be the end of this conversation — but rather a call to deepen it. Lawmakers, regulators, industry stakeholders, and civil society must work together to craft policies that reflect the realities of digital life in the 21st century. Transparency, fairness, and consumer protection should be at the forefront, ensuring that the benefits of digital connectivity are shared broadly and justly, not limited by outdated norms or unchecked corporate discretion.

The debate is far from over — and for the sake of fairness and digital dignity, it should not be.

By : K&Co - March 2, 2026

The Trade Gatekeeper and the Fragility of State Integrity

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The arrest of Budiman Bayu Prasojo by the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) at the headquarters of the Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai is not merely another law-enforcement headline. It is a stark reminder of a deeper irony within state governance: the very institution entrusted with guarding the nation’s trade flows and securing state revenue is once again entangled in allegations of corruption. This episode does more than expose an individual—it highlights structural vulnerabilities that continue to haunt strategic public institutions.

Customs and Excise occupies a critical position in Indonesia’s economic architecture. It regulates imports and exports, safeguards tariff compliance, and protects domestic markets from illicit goods. When officials within such an institution are suspected of bribery or illicit gratification, the damage extends far beyond personal misconduct. State revenues may erode, compliant businesses suffer unfair competition, and illegal goods gain privileged access. In this context, corruption is not a mere administrative offense; it is an assault on economic justice and national credibility.

The fact that the arrest reportedly took place at the central office sends a strong symbolic message: no institutional space should be immune from accountability. Yet symbolism alone cannot substitute for systemic reform. The recurring emergence of corruption cases within the same sector raises a pressing question—why do such practices persist despite repeated enforcement actions? If internal controls were sufficiently robust and compliance systems genuinely effective, irregularities should be detected long before they escalate into criminal investigations. The repetition of scandals suggests that structural loopholes remain open.

The core problem lies not solely with individuals but with the ecosystem of authority in which they operate. Customs administration inherently involves discretion—valuation decisions, inspection prioritization, and clearance approvals. Without rigorous transparency and comprehensive digitalization, such discretion can evolve into negotiation space. Where manual processes and face-to-face interactions dominate, opportunities for illicit arrangements inevitably arise. Bureaucratic reform must therefore move beyond integrity slogans and toward systemic redesign that narrows the margin for abuse.

It is tempting to interpret each high-profile arrest as proof that anti-corruption efforts are working. To an extent, this is true. Enforcement matters. However, genuine success is not measured by the number of officials detained but by the shrinking probability of corruption itself. If similar patterns continue to surface within the same institution, the focus must shift from individual culpability to organizational culture and oversight architecture.

The KPK is fulfilling its reactive mandate—investigating, prosecuting, and deterring misconduct. Yet reactive enforcement, by definition, operates after harm has occurred. The next challenge lies with policymakers and institutional leaders to ensure that preventive mechanisms become more powerful than punitive ones. Without comprehensive reform—strengthened internal audits, data-driven risk management, transparent clearance systems, and uncompromising accountability—the public will merely witness a cycle of scandal, arrest, reform rhetoric, and renewed scandal.

This case should serve as a moment of reflection rather than fleeting spectacle. Public trust in state institutions is built not on declarations but on consistent integrity. When corruption allegations repeatedly strike agencies at the heart of national economic governance, what erodes is not only personal reputation but institutional legitimacy. Indonesia does not lack regulations; it requires the political and administrative courage to reduce discretionary opacity and fortify systemic safeguards until corruption becomes not merely risky, but structurally improbable.

Otherwise, each arrest will remain just another chapter in a recurring narrative—dramatic, necessary, yet fundamentally incomplete.

By : K&Co - February 27, 2026