---

Secretary General Bahtiar Arif of the Audit Board (Relevant Party) delivering his statement in the judicial review hearing of the BPK Law, Monday (18/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Audit Board (BPK) stated that as the board’’s term of office does not correspond to the phrase “for 1 (one) term of office” in Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 15 of 2006 on BPK, BPK cannot institutionally provide statement independently and objectively on the subject challenged by the Petitioner of case No. 3/PUU-XVII/2019.

The Audit Board stressed that the selection of its members is done through the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional Representative Council (DPD) as stipulated in Law Number 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board and Law Number 17 of 2014 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council as has been amended several times, most recently by Law Number 2 of 2018. Therefore, if the petition of the BPK Law was granted, there is no guarantee of the re-election of Audit Board members.

"Regarding the [judicial review] of the case, we fully submit to the panel of justices of the Constitutional Court to give the fairest decision. [That is all]," said Audit Board Secretary General Bahtiar Arif in the the judicial review hearing of the BPK Law on Monday (18/3/2019). 

Jacob Tobing, who was appointed by the Court as an Informant, explained that the issue of the Audit Board had been discussed during the Ad Hoc Committee (PAH) meeting regarding the amendments to the 1945 Constitution from October 1999 to 2002. 

"[It followed] the spirit of reform, such as limitation of power, the need for checks and balances mechanisms, better administration, and so on. One of the decisions was to establish a free and independent Audit Board. Audit Board members are proposed by the House by taking into account the considerations of the DPD. However, the order to form the Audit Board was from the 1945 Constitution and the Audit Board is a free and independent body," Jacob explained before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, accompanied by the other constitutional justices. 

Jacob said that after lengthy discussions and exchanges, further arrangements regarding the Audit Board were carried out according to law. 

Audit Board (BPK) member Rizal Djalil, with attorney Irman Putrasidin and colleague challenged 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.  

This hearing was the last session before the ruling hearing. The Court expected the Petitioner to submit their concluding statement by Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 10.00 WIB. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---