Effectiveness of Law Enforcement on Criminal Acts of Collusion in Government Procurement of Goods/Services in Indonesia Based on Legal Certainty

Abstract

As a result of the 1998 reform, Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a Clean State Free from Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism was created, one of which regulates collusion as a criminal act as stated in Article 21, but its implementation is still questionable at the time of the massive practice of evil conspiracy between state/government administrators and state officials or with other parties in this case the private sector in the procurement of government goods/services according to the results of the 2024 Integrity Assessment Survey with the results that 9% of respondents had close relationships with state administrators, 49% of the selection of vendor winners that had been arranged, and 71% of acts of collusion and nepotism. The approach method used in this study is socio-legal research. The specification of the research approach used is descriptive analytical. The sources and types of data used are primary data and secondary data. This study uses observation data collection techniques and literature studies. The results of the study obtained are that the implementation of the law has many obstacles, especially in the government procurement sector, such as the formulation of elements of the crime that are multi-interpretable and there are no clear and firm restrictions on the elements that harm others, society and the state, then the elements of the article that overlap with the crime of corruption, in addition there are doubts among law enforcers in its implementation because it is not clearly determined which law enforcers are authorized to investigate the crime, and there is no legal culture among law enforcers, the private sector, and society in general and there is no political will or criminal law policy of the government in the direction of enforcing the law on the crime of collusion so that only one case handling was found, namely against the defendant an. MURMAN EFFENDI but this was annulled by the Supreme Court Justice in the a quo case, while other cases related to deviations and abuse of authority in the procurement of government goods/services, investigators and public prosecutors did not use Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a Clean and Corruption-Free State but used Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption so that it not only resulted in the absence of legal certainty but also had an impact on Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a Clean and Corruption-Free State, Collusion, and Nepotism being ineffectively implemented by law enforcement officers.