The Case
Amsal Christy Sitepu is a videografer from CV Promiseland. Between 2020 and 2022, he produced profile videos for 20 villages in Kabupaten Karo, Sumatera Utara, each priced at Rp 30 juta. The videos were delivered, published on YouTube, and all 20 village heads testified in court that they had no complaints about his work. Not one.
Then the auditor from Inspektorat Karo stepped in. They determined the “fair price” was Rp 24,1 juta per video. The difference of Rp 5,9 juta multiplied by 20 villages became “state losses” of Rp 202.161.980. Amsal was charged under Article 3 juncto Article 18 of UU Tipikor, facing a demand of two years imprisonment, a Rp 50 juta fine, and full restitution of the “losses.”
Where the Rp 0 Comes From
The most striking detail isn’t the price difference — it’s what the auditor did to the cost breakdown. In their RAB (Rencana Anggaran Biaya), five components of creative work were set to zero:
| Component | Auditor’s Valuation |
|---|---|
| Concept creation / ideation | Rp 0 |
| Cutting | Rp 0 |
| Editing | Rp 0 |
| Dubbing | Rp 0 |
| Mic / clip-on usage | Rp 0 |
The reasoning? No physical receipts from third-party purchases. Because editing happens in front of a computer screen, not at a cement store with a printed invoice.
This is the core absurdity. The auditor’s logic treats creative and cognitive labor the same way it treats construction materials — if there’s no physical receipt, it has no value.
The Legal Framework: What the Law Actually Says
HPS Must Be Calculated by Expertise, Not Just Receipts
By law, every price in a government contract must be based on a Harga Perkiraan Sendiri (HPS), as mandated by Article 26(1) of Perpres 12/2021 (Perubahan atas Perpres 16/2018 tentang Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah):
“HPS dihitung secara keahlian dan menggunakan data yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan.”
The word “keahlian” (expertise) is critical. The regulation explicitly requires HPS to be calculated based on professional judgment, not just material costs. Article 26(6) further states:
“HPS tidak menjadi dasar perhitungan besaran kerugian negara.”
HPS is a ceiling for offers, not a formula for calculating state losses. This distinction matters: the auditor used a revised HPS as the basis for the Rp 202 juta “state loss” claim — but the law says HPS cannot be used for that purpose.
The SBM Has No Creative Services Category
The SBM (Standar Biaya Masukan) for fiscal year 2026 was issued via PMK No. 32 Tahun 2025. It is comprehensive for tangible goods — cement, asphalt, per-diem allowances. But it contains no category for:
- Video editing rates per hour
- Storyboard conceptualization costs
- Voice-over talent compensation
- Creative direction fees
- Software license amortization for production tools
This vacuum exists across nearly every local government in Indonesia. The SBM is detailed down to the price of refreshments per meeting attendee, but silent on the cost of producing a video.
Discretionary Authority Exists — But Is Unused
UU No. 30/2014 on Government Administration, Articles 22 and 23, explicitly grants officials the right to use discretion (diskresi) when existing regulations are incomplete, unclear, or don’t cover the situation. The official explanation (Penjelasan) defines three conditions for discretion:
- Regulations don’t address the situation (kekosongan hukum)
- Regulations are incomplete or unclear (peraturan tidak lengkap atau tidak jelas)
- A broader public interest is at stake (kepentingan yang lebih luas)
Creative services pricing falls squarely into the first condition. Village heads and PPKs have the legal authority to determine fair market rates for creative work based on surveys, professional standards, or expert consultation.
But they don’t use it. The reason is asymmetric legal risk: a bureaucrat who includes HAKI (intellectual property) components or man-hour-based creative costs in a RAB risks being flagged for “markup” by the audit team. Zeroing out is safer than justifying. The official who rejects creative costs keeps their job. The one who approves them becomes the suspect.
LKPP Already Provides the Methodology
LKPP (Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah) has issued guidance for pricing non-tangible services through its Value-Based Rating methodology for consulting and other services. This approach allows HPS to be structured based on:
- Market-based rates — what comparable services cost in the open market
- Expertise-based rates — pricing based on specialist reputation, exclusive rights, and scope of expertise
- Man-hour calculations — costing based on hours of specialist work required
This methodology was presented in LKPP training materials for jasa konsultansi procurement, where remuneration of tenaga ahli (specialist personnel) is negotiated based on qualifications, experience level, and the complexity of the assignment — not on purchase receipts.
The tools are there. The methodology is documented. But the fear of audit consequences prevents officials from using them.
The Legal Problem Nobody Is Talking About
Amsal was charged under Article 3 of UU Tipikor — “menyalahgunakan kewenangan, kesempatan atau sarana yang ada padanya karena jabatan atau kedudukan” (abuse of authority for personal gain). The critical issue: Article 3 requires the perpetrator to hold a government position (jabatan). Amsal is a private vendor. He holds no government position, has no authority to disburse APBDes funds, and has zero administrative power.
The Mahkamah Konstitusi itself has examined this issue. In Putusan MK No. 142/PUU-XXII/2024, the court noted that Article 3 targets penyelenggara negara (state officials), and that the element of “kewenangan karena jabatan” (authority due to position) is fundamental to the article’s application. The MK’s consideration referenced Article 19 of UNCAC (UN Convention Against Corruption), which defines “abuse of functions” as acts by a public official in the discharge of his or her functions.
The people who authorized the fund disbursement were the village heads — they hold the administrative authority. But all 20 village heads were made witnesses, not suspects. The service provider was the one detained and prosecuted.
ICJR’s Assessment: A Failure of Substantive Justice
The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) characterized the case as evidence of “kegagalan penegak hukum dalam mengimplementasikan KUHP dan KUHAP baru” — a failure of law enforcement to implement the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, which emphasize substantive justice over formal compliance.
ICJR’s point: the new KUHP and KUHAP, which took effect in 2026, are designed to produce keadilan substantif (substantive justice), not just keadilan formalistik (formal justice). Prosecuting a vendor under an article intended for government officials, based on an audit that values creative labor at zero, represents the opposite of this intent.
Administrative Correction, Not Criminal
None of this means Amsal is necessarily right on every count. There could be legitimate questions about the price difference. But the correction mechanism should follow established procurement law:
- Perpres 12/2021, Article 26(6): HPS is not the basis for calculating state losses
- Perpres 12/2021, Article 26(5): HPS is an alat untuk menilai kewajaran harga penawaran — a tool for evaluating offer reasonableness, not a loss formula
- LKPP guidance: Price disputes should be resolved through clarifikasi dan negosiasi (clarification and negotiation), not criminal prosecution
The per-village difference is less than Rp 6 juta. Splitting this across 20 delivered, published, and acknowledged videos, then escalating it to criminal corruption charges, sets a dangerous precedent.
What This Means for Creative Workers
If this precedent stands, no creative professional will touch a government project. Why would any videografer, designer, writer, or consultant accept government work if their labor can be valued at zero by an auditor who has no framework to understand it?
The consequences extend far beyond one case:
- Creative professionals will avoid government contracts entirely
- Local governments will struggle to produce any quality content
- The SBM/SHS gap will remain unfixed because nobody with authority wants to touch it
The Upcoming Moments
On 30 March 2026, Komisi III DPR held an RDPU (public hearing) on this case, chaired by Habiburokhman, who noted that pekerjaan videografi termasuk kerja kreatif yang harganya tidak memiliki standar tertentu (videography work is creative work that has no fixed pricing standard). He reminded law enforcement that the spirit of the new KUHP and KUHAP is keadilan substantif, bukan sekedar keadilan formalistik belaka (substantive justice, not just formalistic justice).
The verdict is scheduled for 1 April 2026.
The question isn’t whether Amsal’s pricing was perfect. The question is whether Indonesia’s legal and procurement system can recognize that creative labor has value — even without a receipt from a cement store.
The tools for reform exist: Value-Based Rating from LKPP, discretionary authority under UU 30/2014, HPS calculated “secara keahlian” under Perpres 12/2021, and professional association standards. What’s missing is the courage to use them.
References
Laws and Regulations
- Peraturan Presiden Nomor 12 Tahun 2021 — Perubahan atas Peraturan Presiden Nomor 16 Tahun 2018 tentang Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah (Pasal 26: HPS dihitung secara keahlian). peraturan.bpk.go.id
- Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Nomor 32 Tahun 2025 — Standar Biaya Masukan Tahun Anggaran 2026. djpb.kemenkeu.go.id
- Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 — tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (Pasal 22-23: Diskresi pejabat). peraturan.bpk.go.id
- Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 jo. UU No. 20 Tahun 2001 — tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Pasal 3: Penyalahgunaan wewenangan).
- Putusan MK No. 142/PUU-XXII/2024 — Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang pengujian UU Tipikor, termasuk batasan subjek Pasal 3 (penyelenggara negara). s.mkri.id
LKPP Guidance
- LKPP — Pengadaan Jasa Konsultansi berdasarkan Peraturan LKPP — Presentasi yang mencakup metodologi Value-Based Rating dan penetapan pemenang berbasis keahlian, bukan nota belanja fisik. apspig.org
- LKPP — Sipraja (Pedoman Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah) — Termasuk ketentuan Penunjukan Langsung untuk jasa yang hanya dapat dilakukan oleh pemegang hak cipta. sipraja.lkpp.go.id
News Coverage
- ReportaseNews — “Videografer Amsal Sitepu Dituntut Penjara, Kasus Mark Up Dipertanyakan” (29 Maret 2026). reportasenews.com
- BBC Indonesia — “Viral Kasus Videografer Amsal Sitepu Disebut Rugikan Keuangan Negara Rp202 Juta” (2026). bbc.com
- Kumparan — “Heboh Videografer di Karo Didakwa Korupsi: Mana Mungkin Penyedia Jasa Mark-up?” (28 Maret 2026). kumparan.com
- Kumparan — “Komisi III Akan Gelar RDPU Kasus Amsal Sitepu Pada 30 Maret” (29 Maret 2026). kumparan.com
- RMOL — “Komisi III Bakal Gelar RDPU Kasus Videografer Amsal Sitepu Besok” (29 Maret 2026). rmol.id
Analysis
- Hukumonline — “Sekali Lagi, Pasal 2 dan Pasal 3 UU Tipikor” — Perbedaan unsur subjek antara Pasal 2 (setiap orang) dan Pasal 3 (pejabat berwenang). hukumonline.com
- Hukumonline — “3 Tantangan Besar Implementasi KUHP-KUHAP Baru” — Termasuk adaptasi aparat penegak hukum terhadap paradigma keadilan substantif. hukumonline.com
- Siyasa.id — “Membedah Harga Perkiraan Sendiri Dalam Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah” — Penjelasan HPS sebagai alat penilaian, bukan dasar kerugian negara. siyasa.id
Primary Sources
- Bayu Aji Bandoro — Thread analysing the structural problems behind the Amsal case (30 Maret 2026). x.com
- Bayu Aji Bandoro — Follow-up thread on SHS vacuum, Value-Based Rating, and discretionary authority (30 Maret 2026). x.com
This article was written by opencode (GLM-5-Turbo | Z.AI Coding Plan), based on content from [16] and [17], supplemented by legal research.
