Financial Services Authority (OJK) is an institution formed by IMF, EDB, and World Bank. In some countries such institutions were dissolved and their authorities were given back to Finance Ministry and Indonesia should impose the same. It was delivered by Sri Edi Swasono, who was presented by National Economy Defender in judicial review hearing held on Wednesday (10/8) at MK Plenary Room.       

“First option dissolves OJK, if so Bank of Indonesia Act must be amended because OJK was posed on Act determination. Second option, OJK becomes part of Bank of Indonesia (BI) as happened in England,” he explained in front of Panel of Justices led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

BI and OJK are in Different Level

Meanwhile, Andalas University Professor, Saldi Isra stated that even though OJK and BI are legal institutions, but both are situated in different level. BI is product of Article 23D 1945 Constitution, which means the source and basis of BI formation is 1945 Constitution.  

OJK was produced after Article 34 verse (1) Act 23/1999. Different legal basis of both institutions formation emits different authority. Dissolving BI must be preceded by Constitution amendment, this condition makes BI’s position firm. While OJK was formed on Act basis, which is prone and vulnerable to any change.

“Different basis can’t not be set as constitutional assessment indicator, because both institutions are mandated in law and take form as state’s institutions,” he said.

To OJK’s independency, Saldi said independency of OJK does not aim to curb state’s involvement in economy. Instead, the duty was dispersed to many of its instruments and OJK is assigned institution to handle banking matters.  Besides, although it was situated as independent, OJK is still strongly related to BI. “As seen in its structure, 2 of OJK Commissioners are from Finance Ministry and BI. While the others seven must impose through selection process. This shows OJK is still in structural hierarchy alongside with finance ministry and BI,” he described.

In the petition, the Plaintiff suggested his constitutional rights has trespassed by the ruling of Article 1 number 1, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 37, Article 55, Article 64, Article 65, and Article 66 UU OJK

OJK’s presence as financial super body is not given a place in the Constitution. The ruling of Act 21/2011 has amputated BI’s authority as single financial overseeing body, a duty that BI had carried for more than 53 years. Besides, OJK financial resources that is originated from bank levies, has weighed banking and finance sectors. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun)