Analisis Kekaburan Norma Hukum dan Risiko Maladministrasi dalam Tata Kelola BPI Danantara

Penulis

  • Retno Meilani Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Vina Hardyana Infantri Universitas Gadjah Mada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/inovasi.v4i2.4304

Kata Kunci:

BPI Danantara, legal ambiguity, maladministration, good governance

Abstrak

The establishment of the Danantara Investment Management Agency (BPI Danantara) as a state-owned enterprise superholding company through Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises and Government Regulation No. 10 of 2025 on the Organization and Governance of BPI Danantara has significant implications for the architecture of state asset management. Although aimed at improving efficiency and optimizing state assets, the institutional regulatory design of Danantara contains a number of legal ambiguities that could potentially lead to maladministration. This study aims to critically examine the inconsistencies and normative ambiguities in the legal instruments governing BPI Danantara and their implications for the principles of state administrative law, particularly the principles of legality and legal certainty. A legal-normative approach is employed through an analysis of regulations based on the principles of good governance. The main findings reveal that the BPI Danantara regulations, particularly Article 9G, which does not classify Danantara administrators as state administrators, as well as the use of optional norms such as the phrase “may” in the formation of the Monitoring and Accountability Committee in Article 24, have created legal uncertainty. This situation not only has the potential to cause of maladministration but also threatens accountability and transparency. Such institutional design creates a gray area that leads to abuse of authority. In this context, the case of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) is a relevant example of how a loose institutional structure can lead to systemic corruption scandals, with significant impacts on fiscal credibility and the country's reputation. Ultimately, this can reduce public trust and the country's fiscal credibility in the eyes of global investors. Therefore, regulatory reform is a strategic urgency to clarify legal ambiguity and strengthen the effectiveness of external oversight institutions to ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability at BPI Danantara.

Referensi

Abyapta, W. R. (2023). Perbandingan konsepsi Sovereign Wealth Fund antara Lembaga Pengelola Investasi dan Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited.

Apriada, K., & Wulandari, P. R. (2024). Pengaruh Good Corporate Governance dan Investment Opportunity Set terhadap kebijakan dividen. Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi (JIA), 2(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.36733/jia.v2i2.10263

Asmara, G., Sukmariningsih, M., & lainnya. (2025). Hukum administrasi negara (O. Madril, T. Sudrajat, & M. I. Sadi, Eds.). PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Danantara. (2025). Daya Anagata Nusantara “Untuk Kemakmuran Indonesia”. https://www.danantaraindonesia.com/

Environmental, T. (2006). Brief analysis. Consumer Reports, 1–2.

Eskeland, G., & Thiele, H. (1999). Corruption under moral hazard. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2204

Fadilah, I. (2025, Mei 3). Aset 47 BUMN bakal dikelola Danantara. Detik Finance. https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-7802254/aset-47-bumn-bakal-dikelola-danantara

Halim, A., & Maria, E. (2020). Problematika hukum dalam pengelolaan keuangan negara & daerah. Unit Penerbit dan Percetakan STIM YKPN.

Haryati, D., Yuniza, M. E., Wibowo, R. A., Noor, H. J., Widyaningtyas, R. S., Rahmawan, A. B., Efendi, V. D., Hardenta, A. D., & lainnya. (2024). Hukum administrasi negara (R. A. Wibowo, Ed.; Edisi pertama). Rajawali Press.

INDEF. (2025). Danantara: Menuju transformasi atau ambisi sentralisasi? Institute for Development of Economics and Finance. https://indef.or.id/danantara-menuju-transformasi-atau-ambisi-sentralisasi/

Lie, L. (2024, November 28). Danantara: An SOE superholding à la Temasek? The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2024/11/28/

Marquette, H., & Peiffer, C. (2015). Collective action and systemic corruption. The Intricacies of Accountability: Horizontal, Vertical and Diagonal Mechanisms to Combat Corruption, April, 1–28.

Md. Ali, A. (2016). 1MDB: The background. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 4(4), 133. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v5i4.8885

Mouwn, E. (2020). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif. Rake Sarasin.

Muntoha. (2013). Negara hukum Indonesia pasca perubahan UUD 1945 (M. Haris, Ed.; Cetakan pertama). Kaukaba Dipantara.

Nik Mahmod, N. A. K. (2013). Good governance and the rule of law. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 4, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls.4.2013.4559

Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. (2025). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 10 Tahun 2025 tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kelola Badan Pengelola Investasi Daya Anagata Nusantara (BPI Danantara).

Said, S., Prasetyawan, W., Paterson, J., & Mahrunisa, T. (n.d.). Danantara.

Sukmasari, M. N. (2025, Mei 2). Ada yang khawatir Danantara bisa bernasib sama dengan 1MDB Malaysia: Kronologi kasus 1MDB. Tempo.com. https://www.tempo.co/ekonomi/ada-yang-khawatir-danantara-bisa-bernasib-sama-dengan-1mdb-malaysia-kronologi-kasus-1mdb-1213330

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2025 Tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN).

Wulansari, E. M. (n.d.). Pengaturan tentang etika penyelenggara negara dalam rancangan undang-undang. Journal RechtsVinding. Diakses 4 Mei 2025, dari https://rechtsvinding.bphn.go.id/jurnal_online/ETIKA%20PENYELENGGARA%20NEGARA.pdf

Diterbitkan

2025-05-23

Cara Mengutip

Retno Meilani, & Vina Hardyana Infantri. (2025). Analisis Kekaburan Norma Hukum dan Risiko Maladministrasi dalam Tata Kelola BPI Danantara. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Dan Pendidikan, 4(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.55606/inovasi.v4i2.4304