Blog Details

The creative industry has emerged as a vital pillar of the national economy. According to the Indonesian Ministry of Trade (2009), this sector focuses on harnessing individual creativity, skills, and talent to generate employment and enhance welfare through human ingenuity. Recently, the case of Amsal Christy Sitepu gained significant public attention after his creative process and professional services were valued at “zero Rupiah” by law enforcement.

A. CASE BACKGROUND: WHEN SERVICE CONTRACTS BECOME CRIMINALIZED

The case originated in 2020-2022 when Amsal Sitepu, a professional videographer and Director of CV Promiseland Pictures, proposed a village profile video project to 20 villages in the Tiganderket and Tigabinanga districts. The contract valued at Rp30 million per village, was agreed upon, the videos were produced, and the final results were well-received by all 20 villages. Despite fulfilling all contractual obligations, the Karo District Prosecutor’s Office (Kejari Karo) named Amsal a defendant in a corruption case. The primary allegation was a “mark-up” on the professional services offered.

B.  FLAWS IN THE INDICTMENT AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Prosecutor charged Amsal under Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law (UU Tipikor), seeking a two-year prison sentence, a Rp50 million fine, and Rp202 million in restitution. During the legal proceedings, Amsal was detained for 131 days. Upon closer inspection, there were two fundamental flaws in the Prosecution’s indictment:

1. The Negation of Creative Value: Auditors and prosecutors viewed creative components (such as editing, cutting, and dubbing) as having no economic value as equivalent to Rp. 0
2. Legal Subject Error: The application of Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law was misplaced. This article is specifically intended for public officials who abuse their authority, whereas Amsal is a purely private individual with no official position or power.

C.  THE VERDICT: A TRIUMPH FOR THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY

The Panel of Judges, presided over by M. Yusafrihadi Girsang, ultimately delivered a full acquittal (vrijspraak), restoring the defendant’s rights, status, and dignity. In the verdict, the Judges emphasized that the elements of a crime were not met based on the following:

1.  Civil Domain: The legal relationship was fundamentally a valid civil service contract.

2.  Verifiable Project: The project was real, the village profile videos were completed and handed over according to the agreement.

3.  Recognition of Creative Value: The Court recognized that ideas, expertise, and the editing process possess legitimate economic value.

4.  Private Subject: As a private party, Amsal lacked the official authority required to commit an “abuse of power.”

5.  Absence of Mens Rea: No criminal intent to defraud the state was found. Amsal’s actions were purely professional business operations with a reasonable profit margin.

D. THE CONTRADICTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CASES OF AMSAL SITEPU AND TONI AJI

The disparity in law enforcement is reflected in the contrast between the fate of Amsal Sitepu, who was acquitted, and Toni Aji, who was sentenced to one year in prison for his alleged involvement in corruption related to a village website project. Ironically, Toni Aji was merely a technical executor far from the center of power and didn’t enjoy any of the funds from the vendor, yet he was forced to bear the criminal burden. This phenomenon raises significant questions regarding the consistency of the Anti-Corruption Law’s application, which should fundamentally target the abuse of power by government officials rather than prosecuting private parties with no involvement in public/government affairs.

CONCLUSION

In the creative industry, pricing structures are inherently dynamic and subjective. The value of a contract depends heavily on the originality of ideas, the editor’s track record, and production complexities. Therefore, disregarding these variables is equivalent to negating the essential value of creativity itself. This ruling serves as a landmark protection for the rights of creative professionals in Indonesia.