---

Brawijaya University regulatory design expert Aan Eko Widiarto giving statement for the Petitioner in the judicial review hearing of the BPK Law, Monday (11/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Limitation of term of office of members of the Audit Board (BPK) occurred after amendments to the 1945 Constitution. The unlimited presidential term of office at that time informed the establishment of the BPK Law. The term of office of the BPK members should be equal that of members of the House of Representatives, that is, 5 years and can be re-elected several times without any time limit. This was conveyed by an expert for Petitioner Rizal Djalil in the fifth judicial review hearing of Law Number 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK Law) on Monday (11/03/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner had previously argued that the 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.  

Aan Eko Widiarto confirmed that argument. He asserted that the BPK Law is overly restrictive in limiting the power and term of office of the Audit Board members, as there is no rational reason behind it. In his opinion, the position and function of the Audit Board in the administration of Indonesia is as an impartial and independent agency. Through its function as regulator of budget and overseer of state finances, Audit Board members require statesmanship.

“Because, in truth, Audit Board members are vastly different from auditors. As an auditor, there is the aspect of national and international interests, while Audit Board members is required to have statesmanship, which is on display through its advisory function in giving recommendations to the Government in managing state budget,” Aan said before the court presided over by Chief Justice, in the presence of the other eight constitutional justices.

In addition, Aan also said that the position at the Audit Board is pluralistic and collective. Even if there is a term limit of 5 years and they can only be re-elected for one term of office, there is hardly a chance for the Audit Board members to take arbitrary actions in their position. “So, in comparison to the term of office of members of DPR, DPD, and DPRD, this limitation on Audit Board members is obviously unjust as there is an inconsistent, illogical provision or variation of regulation that bring about injustice,” Aan argued about the case No. 3/PUU-XVII/2019.

Little Risk

The Petitioner also presented Audit Board I Member Agung Firman Sampurna as witness. He stated that according to the Audit Board organizational structure, it consists of nine members of equal positions. One person is elected chairperson, another deputy chairperson, and seven others auditors. General, strategic issues such as schedule, policies, and strategies of public attention examination are the authorities of the Audit Board members. Meanwhile, on things related to state losses and state financial responsibility, a functional state financial audit team.

“They then collect documents and auditing the findings and are in contact with the entity being examined. Therefore, these auditors will be rotated every 3-5 years to maintain independence. This way, Audit Board members are kept from any risk of conflict of interest,” Agung said.

The Petitioner had previously mentioned the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 108/PUU-X/2012, in which 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.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar reminded that the next session was scheduled for Monday, March 18, 2019 at 11.00 WIB to hear the experts for the Audit Board as the Relevant Party. (Sri Pujianti/NRA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---