A recent case involving an honorary teacher in Probolinggo, East Java, who was accused of causing a state loss of Rp118 million due to holding dual roles, has sparked considerable debate. Initially detained by prosecutors on suspicion of corruption, legal experts swiftly contended that the matter should have been resolved through an administrative solution rather than a criminal prosecution.
Despite the initial charges, the East Java High Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejati), which held the case file, ultimately decided to halt the investigation on February 25, 2026. This decision led to the release of the honorary teacher, Muhammad Misbahul Huda, from Kraksaan Detention Center. His freedom was secured not only because prosecutors found no evidence of an intent to personally profit but also due to the full recovery of the alleged Rp118 million “state loss.”
Misbahul’s detention originated from an investigation by the Probolinggo Regency Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejari), which discovered he held two jobs simultaneously. In addition to his role as an honorary teacher, Misbahul also served as a Village Local Assistant (PLD). Prosecutors determined that Misbahul had violated regulations by receiving salaries from both positions, both of which were funded by the state budget. The prosecutor’s calculations showed that his earnings from this “side job” amounted to a total of Rp118 million, which was subsequently classified as a state loss.
Professor Eva Achjani Zulfa, a distinguished Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Indonesia’s Faculty of Law, argued that the investigation into Misbahul’s case should have considered broader contexts beyond simply criminal corruption. She emphasized that even if a criminal approach was chosen, a deeper inquiry into the presence of mens rea—criminal intent—was imperative. “We must consider this person’s status as an honorary teacher. Did he truly understand the implications of dual roles? Was there a clear conflict of interest?” Eva questioned. “Furthermore, were there any implications regarding the authority to use funds related to his position? All these factors should have been thoroughly assessed.”
Echoing this sentiment, Professor Anna Erliyana, a Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Indonesia’s Faculty of Law, stressed that the case of an honorary teacher cannot be detached from the harsh realities they face. She highlighted that honorary teachers often seek additional income precisely because their “earnings are far from adequate.”
Erasmus Napitupulu, Executive Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), lauded the prosecutor’s office for eventually halting the investigation. However, he raised critical questions about the initial conduct of the inquiry. According to Erasmus, the prevailing mindset of law enforcement agencies still leans towards incarceration, which starkly contradicts the principles of the new Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), both of which emphasize restorative justice. “In reality,” he asserted, “the administrative aspects of this case were far more significant than the criminal ones.”
The Core of the Controversy
When the case first surfaced, the Probolinggo Regency Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejari) staunchly maintained that Misbahul had indeed violated existing regulations. Taufik Eka Purwanto, Head of Intelligence Section at Kejari Probolinggo Regency, stated on February 12, 2026, “The contract clauses for village assistants explicitly prohibit PLDs from holding dual roles as GTTs if their salaries are sourced from state budgets, whether APBN, APBD, or APBDes.” Misbahul’s employment involved serving as a Non-Permanent Teacher (GTT), essentially an honorary teacher at an elementary school, and concurrently as a Village Local Assistant (PLD). Both positions, according to prosecutors, had been held by him since 2019. The prosecutor’s office further claimed that regulations for honorary teachers also contain clauses prohibiting dual employment. They alleged that Misbahul knowingly disregarded these provisions, simultaneously performing both jobs to gain personal profit.
An audit by the East Java High Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejati) Oversight Auditor Team concluded that Misbahul’s actions from 2019 to 2022 and again in 2025 resulted in a state loss of Rp118 million. His monthly income from the side job as a village assistant, which included honorarium and operational costs, was approximately Rp2.2 million.
“These dual roles not only violated contractual agreements but also had the potential to impede his primary performance as a village assistant due to inappropriate time allocation,” Taufik stressed.
Consequently, Misbahul was charged under Articles 603 and 604 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP), and a 20-day detention period was imposed for further investigation. From the Probolinggo Regency Public Prosecutor’s Office, Misbahul’s case file was transferred to the East Java High Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejati), and shortly thereafter, the case was decisively halted.
Anang Supriatna, Head of the Legal Information Center (Kapuspenkum) at the Attorney General’s Office, clarified that the case was dropped because the state loss had been recovered, and there was no evidence Misbahul intended to personally profit from his actions. Anang noted, however, that even without an intent to enrich himself, the substance of his legal violation remained. “He violated the rules by submitting information implying he was not an honorary teacher. It’s regrettable. Fortunately, the gain was not significant,” Anang added on Wednesday (February 25).
Anang stated that the prosecutor’s office acted swiftly to find a resolution for Misbahul’s case, prioritizing a persuasive approach. Misbahul himself, according to information from the Attorney General’s Office, was released from detention on February 20, 2026.
The detention of Misbahul was met with regret by Habiburokhman, Chairman of Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI). He argued that prosecutors should have “adhered to Article 36 of the new KUHP, which stipulates the element of intent” for an action to be criminalized. Habiburokhman further contended that if a violation were indeed found, law enforcement officials should not seize all sources of income, but only one. As lawmakers, he emphasized, prosecutors are obligated to implement the new KUHP’s paradigm, which is substantive, rehabilitative, and restorative in nature.
Unmet Justice: A Broader Perspective
Erasmus Napitupulu, Executive Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), acknowledged and appreciated the prosecutor’s decision to halt Misbahul’s case, noting that the prosecutor’s office had exercised its authority in the public interest.
However, Erasmus questioned the initiation of the investigation itself. He posited that the detention of Misbahul, an honorary teacher, reflected a persistent law enforcement perspective focused on incarceration. In reality, Erasmus argued, “the administrative aspects of this case were far more significant than the criminal ones.”
Considering a state loss of less than Rp200 million over approximately six years, coupled with Misbahul’s status as an honorary teacher, his detention starkly illustrated how “justice based on conscience was not fulfilled,” Erasmus asserted. The criminal corruption approach in Misbahul’s case, he added, suggested that the prosecutor’s decision primarily “stemmed from the state loss.”
Erasmus underlined that an accurate understanding of criminal corruption ought to be predicated on “unlawful acts” (actus reus) and “criminal intent” (mens rea), rather than solely “state loss.” “If the focus remains solely on pursuing state loss, that is not the primary principle of corruption cases,” Erasmus told BBC News Indonesia on Thursday (February 26). “This indicates that prosecutors need to be critiqued for their approach in identifying unlawful acts and the element of intent.”
Erasmus also highlighted the prosecutor’s basis for claiming Misbahul’s actions fulfilled the characteristic of negative legal unlawfulness. To Erasmus, this point seemed to suggest “doubt from the prosecutor” during the investigation. “What was the prosecutor truly pursuing from the outset? Was it merely because there was a state loss?” he questioned.
Professor Anna Erliyana of the University of Indonesia’s Faculty of Law explained that under Law Number 14 of 2005 concerning Teachers and Lecturers, a teacher is considered a profession, not a structural official. This stipulation, she clarified, applies equally to honorary teachers. Anna asserted that Misbahul’s case must be viewed from a “helicopter view,” recognizing that honorary teachers seek additional income due to their substandard welfare. In Probolinggo Regency, where Misbahul’s case unfolded, Anna’s analysis revealed that the honorarium for Non-Permanent Teachers (GTTs) with school-issued decrees (SK) ranged only from Rp300,000 to Rp900,000.
For GTTs holding decrees issued by the Regent, the honorarium was marginally better, though still not ideal, at Rp1.25 million per month. Both figures, Anna noted, remained below the Regional Minimum Wage (UMR). Therefore, she concluded, criminal law should not have been applied to Misbahul’s situation.
“Criminal law should be the last resort. Before proceeding with criminal charges, law enforcement should ideally coordinate with the school and village government. These two institutions employing the teacher certainly possess relevant data,” Anna told BBC News Indonesia on Thursday (February 26). “For instance, if the individual performed their duties well, where exactly was the state loss?”
Anna emphasized that even though the case was later dropped, Misbahul’s designation as a suspect still “bruised the sense of justice.” “It’s clear that an honorary teacher is a person of limited means. Examination results indicated he worked at two institutions out of economic necessity,” she added.
Exploring Alternative Solutions
Reflecting on Misbahul’s case, Professor Eva Achjani Zulfa reiterated that the dimensions of resolution are not singular. She stated that imposing criminal penalties should not be considered the primum remedium, or the primary option, in resolving such matters.
Eva suggested that law enforcement could have utilized Law Number 30 of 2016 concerning Government Administration. This regulation, she explained, provides an opportunity to recover state loss when it arises from administrative negligence rather than malicious intent. “Because the state loss occurred due to administrative oversight,” she affirmed.
Unfortunately, Eva lamented, Indonesia’s administrative law system is not yet robust enough and still presents significant challenges. Consequently, she added, “criminal sanctions are often prioritized.” However, Eva observed that such gaps are gradually being addressed by the introduction of the new KUHP. The new Criminal Code, she noted, offers alternative solutions for legal violations through agreed-upon sanctions for offenders.
This new legal instrument, Eva asserted, can be maximized. “And in my opinion,” she remarked, “this is also highly effective for administrative violations, for example.” Presently, Eva believes, the paramount task for both the government and law enforcement agencies is to disseminate the understanding that criminal law is not the sole solution to every problem.
A Tale of Two Standards: Dual Roles Among the Elite
Dual roles are far from a new phenomenon in Indonesia. However, a stark contrast emerges when comparing how such issues are addressed at different levels. If, at the grassroots level, as seen with the honorary teacher in Probolinggo, East Java, dual roles are scrutinized and even lead to legal proceedings, what happens when similar situations involve the nation’s elite officials?
Research by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) highlights how the practice of dual roles can accumulate conflicts of interest, significantly increasing the likelihood of legal violations such as corruption, collusion, or abuse of power. From the perspective of oversight, crucial for fostering clean and transparent state governance, the practice of dual roles actually undermines these objectives.
A 2020 finding by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (ORI) revealed that between 2016 and 2019, at least 397 commissioners of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMNs) and 167 commissioners of BUMN subsidiaries were implicated in holding dual roles.
Similarly, a Transparency International Indonesia (TII) study published in July 2025 indicated that 34 officials within President Prabowo Subianto’s cabinet—the majority being vice ministers—held concurrent positions as commissioners in BUMNs.
A similar pattern is observed within the police force. Data suggests a continuous increase in police members assigned to positions outside their organizational structure since 2023. In 2023, the total number of police officers serving in external roles reached 3,424, with 1,026 of them being officers. This figure climbed to 3,824 the following year, before increasing again to 4,351—including 1,184 officers—by 2025. Although the National Police (Polri) disputed these figures, claiming only around 300 personnel held dual roles, it does not diminish the fact that widespread double jobbing indeed occurs.
Amidst this backdrop, the Constitutional Court (MK) has recently granted several lawsuits pertaining to dual roles.
Through its ruling MK Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, pronounced on November 13, 2025, the Constitutional Court judges unanimously agreed to annul the phrase “or not based on assignment from the National Police Chief” within the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police. Consequently, active police members can now only hold positions outside the police force after resigning or retiring from police service.
Similarly, in Ruling Number 128/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court affirmed that the prohibition on dual roles—as stipulated in Article 23 of Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning State Ministries—applies not only to ministers but also to vice ministers. The Court granted the government a two-year adjustment period from the date of the ruling to facilitate the necessary changes in office.
To date, a BBC News Indonesia investigation has found no reports of civilian or police officials resigning following these Constitutional Court rulings. BBC News Indonesia has only received a collection of government responses regarding these decisions. Minister of State Secretariat, Prasetyo Hadi, stated that the government would thoroughly examine the grounds and prohibitions established by the Constitutional Court regarding the ruling on vice ministers holding dual roles.
Meanwhile, Minister of Law, Supratman Andi Agtas, clarified that the Constitutional Court’s ruling prohibiting active police officers from holding civilian positions is not retroactive. This means that Polri members who were already serving in civilian institutions prior to the MK ruling are not required to resign. This begs the crucial question: to what extent can the practice of dual roles truly be investigated and addressed?
Erasmus Napitupulu of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) pointed out that dual roles can indeed be subjected to investigation if there is an element of unlawful conduct. “In what context is this unlawful conduct? The context must be carefully considered. If an honorary teacher is immediately criminalized for it, I believe that is simply cruel,” he emphasized.
“However, at the elite level, if there are dual roles that violate, for example, a Constitutional Court order, then by all means, investigate,” Erasmus asserted. He considers the inclusion of context when analyzing issues of dual roles to be a crucial element. If this context is overlooked, all parties ultimately suffer.
“The government is caught off guard due to poorly functioning systems and a lack of good governance, while taxpayers and ordinary citizens can be imprisoned because of such systemic failures,” he concluded.
Summary
Seorang guru honorer di Probolinggo, Muhammad Misbahul Huda, sempat ditahan atas tuduhan merugikan negara Rp118 juta akibat rangkap jabatan sebagai guru dan Asisten Lokal Desa. Kasus ini menuai kritik dari ahli hukum yang menilai seharusnya diselesaikan secara administratif, bukan pidana. Kejaksaan Tinggi Jawa Timur kemudian menghentikan penyelidikan dan membebaskan Misbahul setelah kerugian negara dikembalikan penuh dan tidak ditemukan niat untuk memperkaya diri.
Kasus Misbahul menyoroti perbedaan penanganan rangkap jabatan antara masyarakat biasa dan pejabat elit, seperti menteri, polisi, atau komisaris BUMN yang seringkali juga memiliki jabatan ganda. Meskipun Mahkamah Konstitusi telah mengeluarkan putusan yang melarang rangkap jabatan bagi polisi aktif dan wakil menteri, implementasi putusan tersebut masih dipertanyakan. Para pakar menekankan pentingnya mempertimbangkan konteks dan niat dalam kasus rangkap jabatan, serta perlunya penegakan hukum yang konsisten dan berkeadilan.