Budi Prasetyo, the spokesperson for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), has officially addressed the recent ethical complaint filed against him by Faizal Assegaf, a prominent activist and the President Director of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri. Speaking at the KPK’s Merah Putih building in Jakarta on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Budi expressed a firm stance of non-engagement regarding the specifics of the report, suggesting that the commission’s official position had already been sufficiently clarified. The dispute, which has transitioned from a police matter to an internal ethical review, highlights the ongoing friction between the anti-graft agency’s communication wing and external critics who demand higher levels of institutional accountability.
The decision by Budi Prasetyo to limit his public commentary on the matter signals a strategic move by the KPK to prevent the escalation of a media-driven narrative. When questioned by journalists regarding the allegations submitted to the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas), Budi maintained a composed demeanor, stating that the commission felt there was no longer a necessity to respond directly to the claims made by the complainant. He emphasized that the institution would defer entirely to the wisdom and procedural integrity of the Supervisory Board, which is tasked with overseeing the conduct and ethical adherence of all KPK personnel. Budi’s confidence in the board’s objectivity suggests a reliance on established institutional mechanisms to resolve disputes rather than engaging in public debates that could potentially compromise the agency’s focus on its primary mandate of corruption eradication.
The Escalation of Legal and Ethical Disputes
The reporting of Budi Prasetyo to the Supervisory Board is the latest development in a series of legal maneuvers initiated by Faizal Assegaf. The conflict appears to stem from public statements or official communications handled by the spokesperson’s office, which the complainant alleges were improper or perhaps defamatory in nature. Prior to approaching the Supervisory Board, Faizal Assegaf had already taken his grievances to law enforcement, specifically reporting the spokesperson to the Polda Metro Jaya (Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police). This dual-track approach—pursuing both criminal allegations and internal ethical violations—is a common strategy used by activists in Indonesia to ensure that public officials are held accountable on multiple fronts.
Faizal Assegaf, a well-known figure from the 1998 activist movement, has a long history of challenging state institutions and high-ranking officials. His role as the head of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri adds a corporate dimension to his public profile, yet his actions remain deeply rooted in the tradition of Indonesian civil society oversight. By escalating the matter to the Supervisory Board, Faizal is testing the efficacy of the oversight mechanisms established under the revised KPK Law (Law No. 19 of 2019). The board is empowered to investigate any alleged breaches of the code of conduct, ranging from minor administrative lapses to serious ethical violations that could lead to dismissal.
A Dual-Track Legal Strategy: From Polda Metro to Dewas
The chronology of events leading up to the April 15 report reveals a persistent effort by the complainant to seek legal redress. According to records of the incident, Faizal Assegaf first visited the Polda Metro Jaya to file a report under the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law or general defamation statutes. While the specific details of the remarks that triggered the complaint have not been fully disclosed to the public, the transition to the Supervisory Board indicates that the complainant believes the spokesperson’s actions also violated the internal regulations governing the behavior of KPK employees.
In the Indonesian legal context, reporting a public official to the police and an ethics council simultaneously serves to increase pressure on the institution. While the police investigation focuses on whether a crime was committed, the Supervisory Board’s inquiry focuses on the professional standards of the individual. For a spokesperson, whose primary duty is to represent the commission’s views to the public, the line between official duty and personal liability can often become blurred in the eyes of the law. Budi Prasetyo’s refusal to comment further is likely a measure to avoid providing additional material that could be used in either the criminal or ethical proceedings.
Institutional Integrity and the Role of the Supervisory Board
The KPK Supervisory Board was created to provide a system of checks and balances within the commission. Since its inception, it has been the subject of significant debate regarding the independence of the KPK. However, in cases like the one involving Budi Prasetyo, the board serves as a vital arbiter of professional conduct. The board’s process typically involves a preliminary examination of the evidence submitted by the complainant, followed by a clarification phase where the reported party is invited to provide their version of events.
Budi Prasetyo’s statement that the board will "examine objectively" reflects the official institutional stance. The KPK as an organization must maintain the appearance of total transparency, even when its own members are under scrutiny. If the board finds that there is sufficient evidence of an ethical breach, they may convene an ethics tribunal. These tribunals are often closed to the public, though the final verdicts are usually announced to ensure public accountability. The outcomes can range from a formal warning to more severe sanctions, including salary cuts or termination of employment, depending on the severity of the infraction.
Historical Precedents of Ethical Oversight at the KPK
This is not the first time a high-ranking official or a public face of the KPK has faced the Supervisory Board. In the past, even the chairmen of the commission have been subjected to ethics trials. These cases serve as a reminder that no one within the organization is above the law or the internal code of ethics. For a spokesperson, the risks are particularly high because their role involves constant interaction with the media and the public. Any perceived misstep in communication can be interpreted as a violation of the principles of integrity, synergy, and professionalism that the KPK prides itself on.
Previous spokespersons, such as Febri Diansyah and Ali Fikri, also navigated complex political and legal landscapes. However, the legal environment in 2026 has become increasingly litigious, with public officials frequently facing reports from various segments of society. The increase in such reports is often viewed by analysts as a sign of a vibrant, albeit polarized, democracy where the "watchdogs" of society are highly active in monitoring those in power.
The Profile of Faizal Assegaf and the Activist Context
Faizal Assegaf’s involvement in this case adds a layer of political and social significance. As an activist from the 1998 generation—the group responsible for the Reformasi movement that ended the New Order era—Faizal represents a cohort that is traditionally skeptical of state power. His decision to report the KPK spokesperson is consistent with his history of calling for institutional reform and transparency. For activists like Faizal, the KPK must not only fight corruption in other departments but must also remain "cleaner than white" within its own ranks.
The activist’s move to report Budi Prasetyo also reflects a broader trend where civil society figures use formal legal channels to challenge the narratives provided by state agencies. By involving the Supervisory Board, Faizal is ensuring that the dispute is recorded in the official annals of the commission’s history, regardless of the final outcome. This creates a permanent record of the challenge, which can be used in future discussions about the commission’s performance and its relationship with the public.
Potential Legal and Institutional Ramifications
If the Supervisory Board decides to move forward with a full investigation into Budi Prasetyo’s conduct, it could have several implications for the KPK. Firstly, it might affect the commission’s communication strategy. A spokesperson who is under investigation may be forced to step back from certain duties, potentially leading to a gap in the agency’s public relations efforts at a time when clarity is most needed. Secondly, it could impact public trust. The KPK relies heavily on public support to carry out its mission; any internal scandal or ethical cloud over its leadership can erode that support.
Furthermore, the police report at Polda Metro Jaya continues to hang over the spokesperson. If the police find criminal merit in Faizal’s report, Budi Prasetyo could face a legal process that goes far beyond internal reprimands. This highlights the high-stakes nature of being a public official in Indonesia’s digital and legal age, where every word spoken at a press conference is recorded, analyzed, and potentially used as evidence in court.
The Path Forward for the Corruption Eradication Commission
As the situation unfolds, the KPK appears to be doubling down on its internal processes. Budi Prasetyo’s insistence on letting the Supervisory Board do its work is a classic institutional defense. By "handing over" the matter to the board, the commission is attempting to depersonalize the conflict and turn it into a procedural matter. This approach is intended to protect the agency’s broader work from being derailed by a single controversy.
The public and the media will be watching closely to see how the Supervisory Board handles this report. The board’s handling of the case will be seen as a litmus test for its independence and its willingness to hold the commission’s own staff accountable. In an era where the KPK faces constant scrutiny from both the government and the public, the resolution of this ethical complaint will contribute to the ongoing narrative of the commission’s integrity.
In conclusion, while Budi Prasetyo has chosen to remain silent for now, the machinery of oversight is just beginning to turn. The report by Faizal Assegaf is more than just a personal grievance; it is a manifestation of the complex relationship between the state’s anti-corruption apparatus and the citizens it serves. Whether the Supervisory Board finds merit in the allegations or dismisses them as unfounded, the case underscores the necessity of robust oversight in maintaining the health of Indonesia’s democratic and legal institutions. For now, the Merah Putih building remains focused on its caseload, even as one of its primary voices faces a challenge from within the very system designed to ensure its excellence.
