---

I Gusti Agung Rai Wirajaya and I Gede Hartadi Kurniawan as witnesses for the OJK giving their statements in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2011 on the Financial Services Authority (OJK), Thursday (8/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The investigative authority of the Financial Services Authority (OJK) is to reinforce the functions and duties of the institution. This was conveyed by I Gusti Agung Rai Wirajaya as expert for the OJK (Relevant Party) in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2011 on the OJK on Thursday (8/5/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 102/PUU-XVI/2018 deals with the OJK’s investigative authority.

Gusti stated that the OJK was formed to regulate, supervise, and protect the financial services sector. "So the investigative authority of the OJK investigation is to strengthen the functions and duties of the institution," he before the session chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman.

In addition, Gusti said that the OJK also has a duty to protect financial services consumers. This necessitates the investigative authority because of the increasingly dynamic, complicated, and growing development of financial services and because efforts are needed to prevent negative effects. He also stated that OJK\'s investigative authority was inspired by the function of the Capital Market and Financial Institution Supervisory Agency (Bapepam LK), but in broader coverage—for the entire financial services sector.

When discussing the bill, said Gusti, the Government and the House of Representatives agreed that supervision by the OJK was not only on capital markets, but on the entire financial services sector. Both institutions use an open legal policy to create the regulation. They also ensured that the authority would not conflict with the Constitution.

"The House and the Government considered various aspects, ensuring that they would not violate criminal justice. So the Law has gone through a long process and received various inputs from various parties," he said as a former member of the OJK lawmaking committee.

I Gede Hartati K. as another witness gave a statement on the OJK’s role. When the OJK has not been established, financial crimes befalling several microcredit banks (BPR) were slow to investigate. At that time, it was still under BI\'s authority.

"Not to mention, the process was not integrated. Now all supervisory functions are integrated under the OJK," explained I Gede Hartati K., who was manager of all-Indonesia BPR association.

He said that the OJK’s role is very important, as it understand the ins and outs of BPR and financial institutions as a whole. In addition the OJK provides guidance to financial institutions such as BPR, so that the OJK play a very effective and efficient role.

The case No. 102/PUU-XVI/2018 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 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law. They challenged the investigative authority of the OJK in Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law that is not linked to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The article states that the OJK civil service investigators (PPNS) are authorized to ask for help from law enforcers. 

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)

---