Sidang Tom Lembong 23 Juni - Tom Lembong Bertanya Kepada Ahli Riawan Chandra

Summary of Trial Testimony (Sidang Tom Lembong, 23 June)

This testimony is presented as a court proceeding video where Tom Lembong questions legal expert Riawan Chandra on administrative-law issues related to sugar import permits/assignments. The discussion covers whether a minister’s authority is discretionary or mandatory, and how coordination between ministries should operate.

1) “Can” (permission/authority) is discretionary, not mandatory

A key legal point concerns how the word “can” should be interpreted when it grants ministers authority to appoint/assign BUMN (state-owned enterprises) or other parties.

The expert explains that:

• “Can” does not mean the minister is obligated to carry out the assignment.
• It provides freedom to consider, meaning the official must be able to give reasons for the chosen course of action.
• In administrative law, courts do not simply judge discretion as “right/wrong,” but can test:
  • whether the procedure was lawful, and
  • the legal consequences, including potential abuse of authority or harmful outcomes.

2) Why BUMN sugar import assignment could expand to cooperatives/private sector

The expert supports the rationale that government participation may extend beyond BUMN if the initial assignment failed to meet targets.

The testimony references:

• An earlier arrangement to procure 200,000 tons of sugar through collaboration, but results reached only 57,000 tons.
• As sugar prices rose and BUMN options were considered exhausted, the government allowed collaboration with the private sector and other entities, including cooperatives (TNI/Polri-related/Inkopol).
• This approach is said to align with a presidential directive aimed at stabilizing food prices (including sugar).

3) Responsibility for directives primarily rests with the issuer

A related administrative-law principle discussed is:

• When an official carries out an assignment/order/direction, the primary responsibility rests with the official who issued the directive—provided the execution remains within what was assigned.

4) Coordinating minister vs. technical minister: coordination/synchronization role

Regarding earlier testimony that the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs lacks authority to regulate sugar management, the expert agrees and elaborates:

• Government authority is departmentalized by sector, meaning technical ministries retain executive responsibility.
• The coordinating minister’s role is mainly synchronization/reconciliation, not policy-making for sector-specific regulation.
• Minutes/records from coordination meetings are considered:
  • binding/useful when disputes arise between technical ministries, and
  • not binding when no dispute exists—technical ministers remain responsible for implementation under their mandates.

5) Inter-ministerial coordination determines domestic sugar needs; import amounts must follow

The expert addresses Ministerial Regulation 117/2015, Article 3, which states that sugar imports must reflect domestic requirements determined through inter-ministerial coordination.

The expert clarifies:

• Coordination meetings define domestic sugar needs.
• The import quantities should therefore be aligned with those needs (even if not necessarily in the exact same “form,” but consistent with the required domestic supply).

6) Changing a requirement (industry recommendation vs. cooperation agreement copy)

The expert comments on an administrative change: replacing a requirement for a Ministry of Industry recommendation with a requirement to attach a copy of the cooperation agreement between:

• the importer applying for the permit, and
• the receiving BUMN or the relevant cooperative.

He argues this can be acceptable if it:

• supports public-interest policy objectives,
• does not undermine legal certainty, and
• does not amount to abuse of authority.

7) Transparency/open government as mutual information and oversight

A significant portion of the testimony focuses on transparency as a principle of open governance.

The expert explains transparency as:

• Enabling the public and relevant institutions (within limits) to participate/monitor decision-making.
• Creating mutual information between ministries, helping align sector policies.
• Including a form of mutual monitoring/supervision, such as circulating relevant copies to other bodies and oversight functions (e.g., police-related duties).

The expert is also asked whether the fact that audits were conducted and no complaints/sanctions were issued by the Ministry of Industry supports transparency. The expert responds that:

• It indicates the process was functioning without major issues.
• If inter-ministerial disputes existed, they should be resolved through internal mechanisms—especially through the coordinating minister’s reconciliation role.

8) Closing of expert examination

The session ends after confirming the expert’s overall alignment with prior witnesses’ positions. After a break, the court proceeds to the next expert.

---

Presenters / Contributors

• Tom Lembong (questioner)
• Mr. Riawan Chandra (expert witness)
• Your Honor (presiding judge)
• Public prosecutor (mentioned: fellow prosecutors)
• Legal advisors (mentioned: fellow legal advisors)
• Institutional participants referenced in the testimony/video context, including:
  • Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises
  • Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs
  • Ministry of Industry
  • Ministry of Trade
  • Ministry of Finance
  • Police
  • TNI/Polri-related cooperatives (e.g., Inkopol)
  • Cooperatives/private sugar actors (referenced by role, not by individual names)