Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Novrieza Rahmi, IGAP Trisnajaya
The first Anti-Corruption Court hearing for three Chevron employees began last week in Jakarta, Thursday (20/12). They were charged with corruption in the conduct of a waste cleanup project.
According to the charges, the defendants caused losses to the state by engaging in a waste cleanup project that was unnecessary and charging the Indonesian state’s cost recovery program (i.e., an extractive industry subsidy) in order to pay for the cleanup contractors.
The defendants are Endah Rumbiyati, Environmental Manager of CPI’s Sumatera Light Operation; Kukuh Kertasafari, Production Team Leader of CPI’s Sumatera Light South; and Widodo, Team Leader of CPI’s Sumatera Light North.
They have been indicted for violating Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, and Article 55 (1) point 1 and Article 64 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).
Prosecutors argued that between 2009 and 2012, the group classified 28 land areas as “oil contaminated” and thus subject to a cleanup process called bioremediation, using large amounts of micro-organisms to metabolize pollutants.
Yet a study conducted by a team of bioremediation specialists concluded that those land areas had a 1.73% land concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon—far less than the 7.5% threshold when cleanup is required by law.
According to Minister of Environmental Affairs Regulation No. 128 of 2003 on Procedures and Technical Requirements for Oil Waste and Biologically Oil Contaminated Soil Processing, a bioremediation process is required when an area reaches between 7.5% and 15% land concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon.
Nonetheless, the Chevron team went ahead with cleanup activities. Although a tender process was used to select the PT Sumigita Jaya for the cleanup, during the proceedings, prosecutor Supracoyo argued that the company “did not possess the technical competence to conduct waste processing activities.”
Maqdir Ismail, Chevron’s appointed counsel for the defendants, countered that Chevron had obtained a license for the cleanup, and had successfully applied to the Ministry of Environmental Affairs for an extension of that license.
Taking on the evidence itself, the Chevron side pointed out that Edison Efendi, the “specialist” who tested the petroleum hydrocarbon land concentration as being only 1.73%, had in fact been rejected from Chevron’s earlier cleanup tender process because his company could not meet the technical requirements.
Given the conflict of interest, they argued, the evidence should be considered inadmissible.
The defendant’s counsel went on to argue that at a procedural level, the case had been prosecuted weakly, emphasizing that there was a poor connection between the defendant’s accused behaviors and the laws they have been charged with violating, that there were discrepancies in the legal basis for the three’s indictments, and that the calculation of alleged state losses was problematic.
Finally, Maqdir argued that the defendant’s case should be heard at the Anti-Corruption Court in Pekanbaru, where the cleanup project and alleged acts took place.
(eli)
Novrieza Rahmi, IGAP Trisnajaya
The first Anti-Corruption Court hearing for three Chevron employees began last week in Jakarta, Thursday (20/12). They were charged with corruption in the conduct of a waste cleanup project.
According to the charges, the defendants caused losses to the state by engaging in a waste cleanup project that was unnecessary and charging the Indonesian state’s cost recovery program (i.e., an extractive industry subsidy) in order to pay for the cleanup contractors.
The defendants are Endah Rumbiyati, Environmental Manager of CPI’s Sumatera Light Operation; Kukuh Kertasafari, Production Team Leader of CPI’s Sumatera Light South; and Widodo, Team Leader of CPI’s Sumatera Light North.
They have been indicted for violating Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, and Article 55 (1) point 1 and Article 64 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).
Prosecutors argued that between 2009 and 2012, the group classified 28 land areas as “oil contaminated” and thus subject to a cleanup process called bioremediation, using large amounts of micro-organisms to metabolize pollutants.
Yet a study conducted by a team of bioremediation specialists concluded that those land areas had a 1.73% land concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon—far less than the 7.5% threshold when cleanup is required by law.
According to Minister of Environmental Affairs Regulation No. 128 of 2003 on Procedures and Technical Requirements for Oil Waste and Biologically Oil Contaminated Soil Processing, a bioremediation process is required when an area reaches between 7.5% and 15% land concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon.
Nonetheless, the Chevron team went ahead with cleanup activities. Although a tender process was used to select the PT Sumigita Jaya for the cleanup, during the proceedings, prosecutor Supracoyo argued that the company “did not possess the technical competence to conduct waste processing activities.”
Maqdir Ismail, Chevron’s appointed counsel for the defendants, countered that Chevron had obtained a license for the cleanup, and had successfully applied to the Ministry of Environmental Affairs for an extension of that license.
Taking on the evidence itself, the Chevron side pointed out that Edison Efendi, the “specialist” who tested the petroleum hydrocarbon land concentration as being only 1.73%, had in fact been rejected from Chevron’s earlier cleanup tender process because his company could not meet the technical requirements.
Given the conflict of interest, they argued, the evidence should be considered inadmissible.
The defendant’s counsel went on to argue that at a procedural level, the case had been prosecuted weakly, emphasizing that there was a poor connection between the defendant’s accused behaviors and the laws they have been charged with violating, that there were discrepancies in the legal basis for the three’s indictments, and that the calculation of alleged state losses was problematic.
Finally, Maqdir argued that the defendant’s case should be heard at the Anti-Corruption Court in Pekanbaru, where the cleanup project and alleged acts took place.
(eli)