Attorney Irman Putrasidin delivering the points of petition revision in the judicial review of the Audit Board Law (BPK Law), Tuesday (29/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The revision hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK Law) was held by the Constitutional Court onTuesday (29/1/2019). The petition No. 3/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Audit Board (BPK) member Rizal Djalil, with attorney Irman Putrasidin and colleague.

The Petitioner reviews Article 5 paragraph (1) along the phrase “for 1 (one) term of office” of Law Number 15 of 2006. The a quo article reads, “Members of the Audit Board serve for 5 (five) years and afterward can be reappointed for 1 (one) term of office.” According to the Petitioner, considering that BPK is within the legislative functions as intended in the original intent of the 1945 Constitution, BPK should not be subject to the restriction of 2 (two) terms of office (Article 5 paragraph (1) Law No. 15/2006 just as the legislative (MPR, DPR, DPD) are not limited by 2 (two) terms of office. The Petitioner believes that if House members\' term of office is not limited, mutatis mutandis it also applies to BPK members because the nature of the position of BPK is the same as that of the House, both multiple and collegial collective decisions as well as legislative, making them very unlikely to act arbitrarily. In his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 5 paragraph (1) of the BPK Law along the phrase "for 1 (one) term of office" contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force. 

In the revision hearing, attorney Andi Irman Putrasidin strengthened the argumentation of the petition. He said that the Audit Board membership only required an university degree without any specification and age limit of 35 years. If the Petitioner is restricted from registering as a candidate of Audit Board member only because he has passed two terms of office, he deems it unfair. 

“From [the information] that we received, Audit Board members may come from any major, as long as they [hold a bachelor’s degree]. This is the same as [the requirement] for House members, so [the Audit Board members] hold a political position within that frame. Every 5 years there is recruitment. If we [are kept from registering] because [we have served] two terms of office, while others can register with the qualification of a bachelor’s degree and 35 years of age], we deem this unfair,” said Irman before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.

Aside from revising the petition’s argument, the Petitioner also revised Evidence P-7 from the Petitioner’s curriculum vitae to the minutes of the establishment of the Audit Board. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)