PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 15, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Application of Criminal Sanctions in Cases Involving the Procurement of Covid-19 Personal Protective Equipment (Ppe) Under Law Number 31 of 1999 as Amended by Law Number 20 of 2001

View Full Paper
YPYacob Yonathan PicalMSMargie Gladies SopacuaJPJetty Martje Patty

Key Points

  • This research aims to determine if defendants in the COVID-19 PPE procurement corruption case meet the criteria for corruption as defined by Indonesian law and to evaluate the applicable criminal sanctions.
  • Normative legal research methodology used
  • Statutory and case approaches for analyzing legal frameworks
  • Assessment of corruption definitions and sanctions under Law Number 31 of 1999 and Law Number 20 of 2001
  • Defendants' actions fulfill all corruption elements under Article 2, including unlawful acts and state financial loss
  • Criminal sanctions applied were found inadequate compared to the scale of state losses and social impacts
  • Recommendations for improved oversight mechanisms in emergency procurement and strict penalties for corruption during disasters

Abstract

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic that struck Indonesia in early 2020 created a national emergency that forced the government to make rapid decisions in procuring health facilities and distributing social assistance. This situation simultaneously opened loopholes for corrupt practices, as evidenced in the procurement case of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) involving Ministry of Health officials, resulting in state losses of hundreds of billions of rupiah. This study aims to analyze whether the defendants' actions in the COVID-19 PPE corruption case can be qualified as corruption under Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001, and to analyze the criminal sanctions imposed. The method used is normative legal research with statutory and case approaches. The results show that the defendants' actions fulfill all elements of corruption under Article 2 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 2 paragraph (2), namely unlawful acts, self-enrichment, and state financial loss committed under certain conditions of national disaster. The criminal sanctions imposed are assessed as not yet reflecting proportional punishment given the magnitude of state losses and social impact. This study recommends strengthening emergency procurement oversight mechanisms and consistent application of maximum criminal penalties for corruption during disasters.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pical et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2f984ba1cfeec4908294echttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20674939
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Criminal Law Analysis of Abuse of Authority in the Procurement of Goods and Services2025
  2. 2Legal Review of Corruption Crimes in Covid 19 Social Assistance Funds2024 · 1 citations
  3. 3Ideal Concept of Goods/Services Procurement Regulation for Pandemic Emergency Situations2024
  4. 4Juridical Analysis of the Flexibility in Procurement Procedures For Goods and Services During the Covid-19 Emergency Period From the Perspective of Administrative Law and the Risk of Abuse of Authority2025
  5. 5Reformulation of Criminal Act of Corruption in Building Failure Within Procurement of Construction Services from Perspective of Legal Certainty2025