The Administrative Paradigm Trap

In many cases of corruption in the procurement of goods and services or natural resource permits, the legal instruments used are often very technocratic. Law enforcers tend to pursue blatant procedural violations, such as errors in determining tender winners or deficiencies in the volume of work that are technical in nature.

Herein lies the trap. Structural actors who give oral instructions, secret codes, or through meetings in private rooms untouched by surveillance cameras, are automatically protected by an administrative fortress. According to Romli Atmasasmita (2018: 45), our legal system does tend to rigidly separate administrative and criminal responsibility. As a result, "policy" is often considered an area that is immune to criminal touch, even though the policy was born from malicious intent (mens rea) to enrich oneself or a group.

Failure to Read Structural Crime

The logic of law enforcement that targets technical actors is actually a form of failure to read corruption as a structural crime. When the law is only able to ensnare document signers, but fails to touch the intellectual actors who ordered the signing, then the law is actually facilitating the regeneration of corruptors. These policy controllers will easily find new "sacrificial lambs" for the next project, while the corruption scheme remains intact. This confirms Satjipto Rahardjo's view (2009: 112) that the law often loses its penetrating power when faced with established power structures, because the law is forced to work within the boxes of formalities that they create themselves.