Bismar Nasution dan Atip Latipulhayat as experts for the Government to deliver statements in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2011 on OJK, Monday (1/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Economic Law Professor at the University of North Sumatra (USU) Bismar Nasution said that the investigative authority of the Financial Services Authority (OJK) is nothing to worry about. In fact, the authority needs support in order to realize legal certainty in financial services. He conveyed this as expert for the Government in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2011 on OJK, Monday (1/4/2019).

Bismar explained the investigative authority means that the OJK has a role in overcoming financial crimes. This can be realized because the OJK has knowledge of various modes of financial crimes. He said this would make the OJK\'s investigative role effective.

"There will be legal certainty. This will have a positive effect on the finance world that requires stability," he explained regarding Case No. 1102/PUU-XVI/2018. This, he added, will lead to confidence of market players and consumers in the banking world as everything feels protected.

Without legal certainty, Bismar said, there will be a domino and systemic effect in the financial world, which will cause financial market instability, while the financial market requires justice and protection of market mechanism.

On the other hand, the OJK\'s investigative authority is also based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) so there is no need to be afraid of irregularities. Bismar said that OJK\'s investigative authority is also to realize legal awareness in the community. He also said that overlap of investigative authority with other law enforcers is nothing to worry about as it will spark competitiveness among investigators.

Another expert, Atip Latipulhayat, said that there is no single model regarding OJK-like institutions in other countries. The authority of such an institution is tailored to the needs of each country. "It means that the authority of the investigation in the OJK need not be disputed because [it is different in every country]," he said. Alip actually emphasized that the OJK\'s supervision and action are a unity, where there is investigative authority to realize OJK\'s vision of becoming a financial supervisory institution.

The case was petitioned by lecturers Yovita Arie Mangesti, Hervina Puspitosari, Bintara Sura Priambada, and Ashinta Sekar Bidari. The Petitioners had argued that their constitutional rights had been or were potentially violated by the enactment of Article 1 number 1 and Article 9 letter c of the OJK Law, especially along the word “investigation.” According to them, the investigative authority in Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law was not linked to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The article states that when necessary, the OJK PPNS are authorized to carry out investigations without coordinating or asking for help from other law enforcers, namely police investigators. The Petitioners stressed that, observing the authority of the OJK investigators as stipulated in Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law, some norms violate the principle of due process of law and can lead to arbitrariness by OJK investigators. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)