---

House statement read by House Commission XI member I Gusti Agung Rai Wijaya in the judicial review hearing of BPK Law, Tuesday (26/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The House of Representatives said that the Audit Board (BPK) was an extension of the House to conduct state financial audits. This is because the House does not have the apparatus to audit state financial responsibility.

“The BPK members are not bureaucratic officials, but political officials elected by the House,” said House Commission XI member I Gusti Agung Rai Wijaya in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK Law) on Tuesday (26/2/2019).

He explained that during the discussion of Article 5 paragraph (1) along the phrase “for 1 (one) term of office” of the BPK Law there was no dispute in the working committee and between the working committee and the Government.

“The discussion of Article 5 paragraph (1) on the term of office of BPK members at the time followed presidential term of office as stipulated in Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution that reads, ‘The President and Vice President hold office for a term of five years and can afterwards be elected to the same office, for one other term only.’ Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 15 of 2006 is an effect of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution on the term of office of the president and vice president,” Wijaya said on behalf of the House.

Furthermore, he said that after the first amendment to the 1945 Constitution was implemented and the BPK Law stated that the position of BPK members could not be equated with the term of office of the president and vice president because the authority of the president and vice president was inherent in their personal selves while the authority of BPK members is collegial collective. 

"Eliminating the phrase ‘for 1 (one) term of office\' from Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 15 of 2006 will not reduce the legal rights of other citizens because the House will offer the opportunity for applying to BPK openly to the public. Thus, every citizen has the same opportunity to become a member of the BPK." 

Open Legal Policy 

Meanwhile, Head of Legal Aid Bureau of the Secretariat General of the Ministry of Finance Tio Serepina Siahaan said that the Government considered the provision of Article 5 paragraph (1) of the BPK Law on the term of office of BPK members an open legal policy, which is the authority of the legislators to decide according to current demand and needs.

The Constitutional Court in Decision Number 26/PUU-VII/2009 expressly states that the Constitutional Court cannot cancel a law if the norm is an open delegation of authority or a legal policy by the legislators. 

No Legal Standing 

Even if the contents of a law are considered bad, the Constitutional Court cannot cancel it because what is considered bad is not always unconstitutional. "Therefore, the Government views the provision of Article 5 paragraph (1) of the BPK Law cannot be disputed as requested by the Petitioner for the judicial review," said Tio on behalf of the Government. 

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.” 

The Petitioner argued that restriction to president\'s term of office to maximum two periods was to prevent authoritarian power held by one. However, BPK is not a one-man show, but 9 people who work collectively (Article 4 paragraph (1) of the BPK Law), and also not the holders of government power that controls the military, law enforcement, and the economic sector of natural resources. 

In Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 108/PUU-X/2012, the Court believes that the limitation of presidential term of office cannot be equated with the same restrictions for members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Representatives Council (DPRD) because the nature of the two positions is different. The president is a single position that has full authority in carrying out government power, so restrictions are needed to avoid arbitrariness. The members of DPR and DPRD are plural positions where each decision making within their authority is carried out collectively, so that there is very little possibility of abuse.  

The next judicial review hearing of the BPK Law will be held on Monday, March 11, 2019. The session will hear the statement of an expert for the Petitioner. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---