������

UNAIR NEWS��–��The imposition of corruption crime to construction work contracts between the government as the service user with the construction company as the service provider was deemed unfair and exaggerated. ��

The enactment of law meant was Article 2 and 3 Law Number 31 of 1999 on Corruption Crimes revised as Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (UU Tipikor).

It was stated by Marthen Hengky Toelle in his doctoral degree exam of Legal Studies, Faculty of Law �������� (UNAIR). His dissertation titled ‘Corruption Crime in Construction Work Contracts Between the Government as the Service User and the Construction Service Provider’ has been successfully defended against seven examiners on Tuesday, July 19.

His dissertation was predicated as ‘with praise’ with grade point average 3.63.

“The application of Corruption Crime Law (UU Tipikor), especially Article 2 and 3, to construction service provider has caused my anxiety. In the law of construction service has regulated things related to contracts, but it looks as if the contracts were assumed as conspiracies. It is dangerous. Are they really?,”said Marthen during interview after the dissertation exam.

The advocate specialized on construction service stated that UU Tipikor cannot be applied to regulate construction service, even though the contracts use the state budget. If there is a contract violation, then the violator will be adequately charged with the penalty written in the contract.

“In a contract, if the construction provider does not fulfill its obligations, then they have to indemnify. For example when their work is below standards, steel used to build a bridge supposed to be size 18 but the one used in reality was size 10. So we just have to calculate the loss. The state money is given back but we can’t say that it involves bad intention every time,” said Marthen.

Marthen even emphasized that the application of Article 2 and 3 UU Tipikor in construction service has made some parties reluctant to manage the budget.

“We cannot assume there is a bad intention in the contract. The contract can’t do it. We must think positively as we are jurists. There are many victims of it. There is high amount of unused funds (SILPA) as an excess of the article 2 application. People are afraid of being in the management. They are afraid of being involved in corruption crimes. They are afraid of using the budget. Even nationally, the SILPA is very high,” said Marthen.

But, he did not deny that this thought is often being debated in the exam as the contract deals with the government use the state budget. The examiners asked if the state budget itself is one element of corruption.

“What was often debated on was the state budget. As if when it involves state money, it is connected with corruption. For me, the element of corruption is not only the existing of state budget. If in the contract, there is a state loss, they can just pay back the loss. But there is a conception that when there is state money there is corruption. That’s what I disagree on,” said the man born on March 19, 1953. (*)

Author : Defrina Sukma S.
Editor������ : Binti Q. Masruroh