The court decision sentencing three former executives of PT Pertamina Patra Niaga—Riva Siahaan, Maya Kusmaya, and Edward Corne—to 7 to 10 years in prison has sparked controversy among legal practitioners. Experts argue that the corruption verdict violates the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) principle and ignores the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 regarding the proof of state financial losses.
The main objection from legal circles lies in the methodology used to determine state financial losses in this case. The prosecution is seen as focusing the charges on potential losses due to global oil price fluctuations referencing the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) index, rather than proving real or actual losses. Yet, on a consolidated basis, Pertamina and its subsidiaries still recorded significant profits during the relevant period, reflecting that the commercial decisions taken were within normal business limits.
This case raises deep concerns about the blurring line between pure business risk and corruption. If every decision made in good faith by SOE directors is criminalized when market losses occur, it is feared this will stifle management's courage to take strategic steps. Critical activities such as hedging, commodity trading, and business expansion are expected to stall due to the fear of criminalization.
The long-term impact of this law enforcement trend is expected to affect the overall governance of SOEs. A reluctance to take strategic risks will not only slow down domestic investment but also potentially erode the competitiveness of state-owned enterprises internationally and lower global investor confidence in Indonesia's business climate.
