It’s a shame that only the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia has conveyed to the public the results of his findings in the form of maladministration in the mechanism and distribution of social assistance (bansos) for the Family Hope Program (PKH) by the Ministry of Social Affairs. The public is waiting for follow-up action and is encouraging the Government Internal Monitoring Apparatus (APIP) at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Regional Government where the mechanism violation occurred to also submit the results of their findings so that administrative errors which will definitely cause state financial losses can be followed up with recovery of state financial losses.

It is impossible for the various errors and procedural violations that occur in the distribution of social assistance to be known only to the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia as an external supervisor. In order for state finances to be restored, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Villages, and the Ministry of Social Affairs are obliged to order all APIPs in their ranks to submit a Report on the Results of their Supervision.

According to the supervision implementation regulations, those who find that there are administrative errors that have caused state financial losses are required to refund state financial losses no later than ten working days from since it was decided and the results of the supervision were published. The parties who are obliged to return the amount of state financial losses resulting from administrative errors are government agencies and/or government officials.

Government bodies or government agencies are obliged to return state losses that arise if administrative errors made are proven based on the results of supervision to occur due to other than an element of abuse of authority. Meanwhile, government officials are obliged to return state losses that arise if administrative errors made are proven based on the results of supervision to occur due to elements of abuse of authority.

The element of abuse of authority is determining responsibility for returning state financial losses. If an administrative error occurs due to abuse of authority, then responsibility is assigned to the official in charge of the distribution of PKH social assistance. If an administrative error occurs that is not caused by an abuse of authority, then responsibility for state financial losses is borne by the state institution or agency that carries out the distribution of social assistance in the form of refunds for state financial losses or investigations into allegations of criminal acts of corruption.

Abuse of authority itself includes several aspects, namely actions exceeding authority, actions mixing authority, and arbitrary actions. Exceeding authority normatively means the action of a government agency or government official that exceeds the term of office or the time limit for the authority to apply, exceeds the territorial limits of the authority and/or is in conflict with statutory regulations.

The normative meaning of mixing up authority is the action of a government body which is outside the scope or subject matter of the authority granted and/or contrary to the purpose of the authority granted. Arbitrary action is an action by a government agency or government official that is without basis in authority and/or contrary to a court decision that has permanent legal force.

Abuse of authority when linked to the definition of maladministration is one of the elements in behavior that violates or violates the law, but does not only include abuse of authority. This is due to negligence and neglect of legal obligations in the provision of public services by state and government administrators which cause both material and immaterial losses to the community and/or individuals.

The PKH social assistance budget is a form of public service managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs. As is known, the 2023 PKH budget is not small, reaching IDR 28.7 trillion for 10 million beneficiary families. Many parties are warning that the distribution of social assistance should be strictly implemented and monitored to prevent misuse, especially ahead of the election.

Statements about maladministration are clearly not the end of the work of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia. The public hopes that the data on the findings will be forwarded to the President as head of state and head of government as well as the Corruption Eradication Commission as law enforcer so that every penny of state financial losses arising from administrative errors in the distribution of PKH social assistance will be immediately recovered.

The practice of maladministration is an act that must be prevented and eradicated along with the practices of discrimination, collusion, corruption and nepotism. Both maladministration, collusion, corruption and nepotism are factors that cause the democratic system to fail in realizing prosperity, prosperity and justice for society. So, to prevent and eradicate it, supervisory activities are needed regarding state administration practices by state officials.

In the case of maladministration of social assistance, PKH, which is the state administrator in public services, includes several agencies, starting from the Ministry of Social Affairs to the Village and Subdistrict Governments. The public is eagerly awaiting further disclosure from the Ombudsman regarding the results of his supervision with more specifics and details regarding the PKH social assistance distribution scandal which includes:

— since the fiscal year when PKH social assistance has occurred maladministration
— in which districts/cities there has been maladministration in the distribution of PKH social assistance
— the amount of state financial losses arising from maladministration of PKH social assistance distribution
— which parties are responsible for the return state losses based on the results of supervision
— which parties are involved in the process and occurrence of acts of maladministration
— accountability in the form of sanctions given to parties who are proven based on the results of supervision to have committed acts of maladministration
— recapitulation of the progress of returning state financial losses

Returns of state losses and Disclosure of parties involved and responsible for maladministration of PKH social assistance distribution must be made public so that the social assistance distribution system can be modified in order to prevent leaks. Basically, the social assistance program is part of the social protection policy designed by the government to improve the welfare of society, especially the lower middle class. If this program is leaked, then the purpose of this program cannot be directly felt by the people who need it.

This maladministration scandal is the momentum for modifications to the system and distribution mechanisms which are strongly supported by the people. The steps and performance of the Ombudsman are highly appreciated by the people as long as this process continues and is not stopped there, meaning it evaporates without any follow-up. The public demands legal accountability through the Corruption Eradication Commission for state financial losses that are not returned to the state.

Meanwhile, for state financial losses that are returned to the state, the public is asking for sanctions against public officials who are proven based on the results of supervision to have committed acts of abuse of authority in the distribution of PKH social assistance. Including parties involved in the sense of benefiting from fraud in the distribution of social protection programs.