For four consecutive times, since 2004 until 2007, overall government financial report received the worst opinion, disclaimer. The ones with the best opinion was still new institutions with low budget.

Istikamah. or Consistent. For the forth consecutive times the central government reached the same result. However, this time it was not to be followed. Since 2004 until 2007 The Supreme Auditors had been very loyal in stamping the result of the government financial audit (LKPP) with disclaimer opinion.

In other words, the government had not met the standard as the Supreme Auditor desired when preparing their financial report. It means that “there is almost no progress in transparency also accountability in the State Finance,” explained the head of The Supreme Auditors, Anwar Nasution before the Assembly Meeting of the House of Representatives (DPR), last Tuesday (3/6).

This opinion meant that the auditor was hesitant to issue an opinion. In the audit of financial report, at least there are four kinds of opinions. The perfect opinion was unqualified opinion. In the second rank there is qualified opinion. The third rank is adverse opinion. In the lowest rank was disclaimer. Actually there is another half-rank between unqualified and qualified opinions. That is unqualified with explanatory paragraph.


Kinds of Opinion



Unqualified Opinion



Unqualified with explanation



Qualified Opinion



Adverse Opinion









Source: BPK (The Supreme Auditors)

Tax: old song

The defects and the loopholes in the financial report were still around the same areas. Tax problem was one of the examples. Since the Act on General Stipulation on Tax was issued in 2007 (UU 28/2007), The Supreme Auditors were furious. The external auditor institution for the State finance felt obstructed in their access to examine the income from tax. In fact, the two institutions, The Supreme Auditors and the Department of Finance cq Tax General Directorate, jostled in the Constitutional Court. In the trial of Act on General Stipulations on Tax (UU KUP), the government won. The Supreme Auditors felt obstructed because the requirement to attain the permission from the Minister of Finance in examining the tax information was extremely difficult. Actually, the tax sector comprises 70% of the tax income,” Anwar grumbled.

The reliable data was also hard to get. Take a look at the significant deficit of rupiahs. The Department of Finance reported the brut income from the previous year was Rp752, 58 trillion. Meanwhile the Accounting System of the State General Treasury (SAKUN) only reported Rp527, 56 trillion. It meant that there was a deficit around Rp225, 02 trillion.

The net income data was not very much difference. The Data from the State Income Module concerning the net income showed a number Rp498, 95 trillion. Meanwhile, the SAKUN reported the number Rp490, 99 trillion. So there is a Rp7, 96 trillion difference. The significant difference in the number made the Supreme Auditor not able to be convinced on the naturalness of the data.

Beside that tax income, there was also illegal income. The charge was conducted by departments/ State institutions, “without any legal grounds”, Anwar humorously. The charge was also managed outside the State Budget (APBN) mechanism. The kinds of the charges came, for example, from the result of the state assets usage, giral account service, also the charge from the people.

Assets, income, and expenditures

The Supreme Auditors saw that there were 58 departments/state institutions that was not discipline in inventarizing their fixed assets. In total, there was Rp443, 49 trillion of assets in the audited 85 institutions. However, of that ammount of money, Rp387, 68 trillion found inthose 58 institutions was not properly inventarized. As the result, 87% of the state assets were badly managed.

The Supreme Auditors was also noted that there was Rp707, 81 trillions of income and gratification received by the state. Nevertheless, Rp483, 05 trillion of it was not properly managed. As the result, fifteen receiving institutions did not get the unqualified opinion. It means that there are 68% of income and gratification that were not properly managed. The Supreme Auditors were also highlighting the ten state institutions with reckless records and expenditure reports for their end-of-year activities. The record was not equal to the reality because it was not supported by valid evidences.

In overall, the Supreme Auditor examined Rp757, 65 trillion of state expenditure. Of the number, there are Rp194, 93T that caused sixteen institutions failed to get the best opinion. In other words, the expenditures that were not discipline reached 26%.


Value of fixed assets of central govt institutions without Unqualified Opinion (top 5)

State Ministry/Institution

Opinion in 2007

Fixed Assets Value (Rp)

Department of Defense



Indonesian Police



Department of Public Work



Department of Transportation



Department of Health



Total value of fixed assets of the central govt institutions assets


Value of income and gratification of state institutions without Unqualified Opinion (top 5)

State Ministry/Institution

Opinion in 2007

Income and Gratification (Rp)

Department of Finance



APP 62 (Subsidized Expenditure and other transfers)



Department of Forestry


National Institution of Land



Department of Health



Total value of income and gratification in state institutions


Value of Expenditures in state institutions without Unqualified Opinion

State Ministry/Institution

Opinion in 2007

Expenditure Value (Rp)

Department of Finance



APP 70 (Balancing Fund)



APP 96 (Financing Credit of Foreign Loan)



Department of Health



Department of Transportation


Total value of expenditures of central government institutions




Actually the government had tried to restructure the finance accounting system. Take a look at the increasing number of institutions receiving unqualified opinion. Whereas in 2006 there were only 9% with the best opinion, in 2007 the number grew to 13% of the total audited institutions. In 2006, the Supreme Auditors only examined 80 audited bodies. Meanwhile the following year, the Supreme Auditors added the number to be 85 institutions.

There were a number of central government institutions receiving unqualified report book in 2007. They were the Supreme Auditors, State Enterprise Ministry, National Intelligence Body, National Security Board, APP 61 (Financing Loan Interest), National Security Institution (Lemhanas), the Constitutional Court, PPATK, LAN, DPD, also the Judicial Commission.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) received the unqualified opinion with explanatory paragraph. Unique information related with the Indonesian Miniature Park (TMII). In 2006, it was not examined by the Supreme Auditors. In 2007, the State auditors examined them with disclaimer result. However, TMII also submitted the examination to Private Public Accountant Office where they received unqualified opinion.

Receiving two-thumb-up report, the Head of PPATK Yunus Husein could not hide his delight. “Our director of finance is a transparent and accountable person. Our finance management must not go out of the line,” he said lightly over the phone, Tuesday (3/6).

Even though receiving good mark, it did not mean the Minister of State Enterprise, Sofjan Djalil, could be at ease. The Minister had to be able to push State Enterprises to accellerate the submitting of the financial reports that had been audited. This was due to the insertion of the financial report in the Central Government Financial Report (LKPP). “According to the Act on State Finance,” continued Anwar. This point was also applied to the institutions supervising the Regional State Enterprises.

The increasing number of unqualified achievers did not automaticly made Anwar satisfied. It was because most of the institutions were new organizations. besides being new, those institutions were considered as “small scaled,” continued Anwar.

Down the hill

Apart from the increasing number of institutions with unqualified opinion, there were some other institution with decreasing quality. For example, the National Library that received the qualified opinion, a year after they received disclaimer. Department of Communication and Informatics was also the institution with qualified opinion and turned into adverse opinion.

In fact, there were institutions previously with the unqualified opinion and then went down the hill. It changed 180 degrees, the opinion on the financial report turned into disclaimer. The condition occured at two accounts, APP 71 (Finance for Special Autonomy and Adjustment) also APP 99 (State Capital Insertion –PMN).

Responding to that, Chief Auditor of the Institution, Syafri Adnan Baharuddin, had an explanation. The Public Service Board (BLU) held by the Department of Communication and Informatics was found to be disordered. “BLU was not transparent enough in reporting their income,” said Syafri.

Account Management

The government had also meet the recommendation of the Supreme Auditors to manage wild accounts. Until December 31, 2007, the executives had closed 2.086 uncleared accounts. The government had also submitted the rest of the fund to the state treasury account as much as Rp7,27 T and US$ 5, 85 million.

Still, not all the government accounts were fine. To accelerate the management, the Supreme Auditors advised the executives to close passive accounts without activities. Next, they could submit the fund to the state treasury. The management also applied to the fund that still lied in the personal accounts of the public officers. This was to accelerate the single treasury account.

Ideally, every state income should belong to the State. The Income account was numbered 502. however, due to techniccal problems, often that the government put it in the interval account.

Income from oil and gas, for example. The post was claimed to be not transparent. The government often put it in Account 600. After that, the government submitted them to Account 502. It could be understood that the money received one day would be used by the government again.

Member of the Supreme Auditors, Udju Djuhaeri could understand that. “For example, because of the five points,” he explained. The five points were, for the reimbursement the Selling Tax (PPn); to pay the Building and Land Tax for oil; to submit the regional tax and retribution; to pay the working fee of the upstream to BP Migas; also to adjust some ammount of lifting if there was an overvalue or undervalue.

Report to Graft Commission

Member of the House of Representatives, Dradjad Wibowo highlighted the oil and gas sector. According to the legislator from the National Mandate Party, the state money bursting from this sector was monstrous. “The fee for brokers in oil and gas could reachUS$2 billion,” emphasized the member of Commission XI (Banking and State Finance Sector).

Dradjad also drew our attention on the wild retribution conducted by eleven departments. “this is an indication of corruption,” he said. Because of that, Dradjad demanded the Supreme Auditors to bravely reported them to the Graft Commission.

Dradjad colleagues from Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle supported the statement. Effendi Simbolon from Commission VII (environment, mining, and energy) stated that the State income from oil and gas was arranged according to the mechanism in State Budget. If there was a misuse, it meant that the government violated the law.

Meanwhile Panda Nababan, coming from the same party with Effendi, from Commission III (Law and Human Rights Sector) emphasized that reporting to the Corruption Body if there was a criminal indication made by the Supreme Auditor was not a capital obligation. It was a “constitutional obligation” he said.

Responding to the statements from the House, Udju did not want to hurry. “There should be a strong reason. We will study about that first,” he stated. According to Udju, the financial accounting from oil and gas experienced a move. This caused complaints from the association of oil and gas enterpreneurs. We used to know the block basis. Now it turns into plan and development basis. The adjustment was the one that caused the problem in the accounting.



Photo: courtesy of Constitutional Court PR Doc.

Translated by: Yogi Djatnika (MKRI)

Thursday, June 12, 2008 | 15:04 WIB 272