Head of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) Tio Serepina Siahaan representing the Government responding to the petition in review hearing of the Audit Board (BPK) Law, Monday (11/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Audit for specific purposes (PDTT) is an examination of the management of state money based on transparency and responsibility so as to create good governance. The granting of PDTT authority through Law Number 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK Law) and Law Number 15 of 2004 on State Financial Management & Accountability Audit gives room to the BPK to conduct investigative audits of indication of state losses. This was explained by Head of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) Tio Serepina Siahaan representing the Government, who delivered information in the follow-up hearing of the BPK Law and the State Financial Management Law.

The hearing taking place in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (11/11/2019) was petitioned by lecturers Ibnu Sina Chandranegara (Petitioner I) and Aulia Kasanova (Petitioner II), and student Kexia Goutama (Petitioner III). In the petition No. 54/PUU-XVII/2019, the Petitioners stated that Article 6 paragraph (3) of the BPK Law and Article 4 paragraph (1) of the State Financial Management Law unconstitutional.

Serepina further explained that the BPK audit includes three types of examination: financial, performance, and specific purpose. As referred to in the two Laws, the management of state finances must be professional. Therefore, she added, accountability is important so that the scope of state finances and the responsible parties can be monitored. "This examination also has certain standards and is strictly regulated," Serepina said before a hearing led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, with the other eight constitutional justices.

In the previous hearing, Petitioners I and II stated they academically understand that the authority of the Audit Board is regulated in Article 23E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution: examining the management and accountability of state finances. Meanwhile, BPK\'s performance audit authority as stated in the BPK Law cannot be expanded. It is also stipulated in the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015, 12/PUU-XII/2014, and 97/PUU-XI/2013. However, after the enactment of the Law on State Financial Management, BPK\'s authority of audit for specific purposes (PDTT) was added. This additional authority is unconstitutional because it is not in line with the 1945 Constitution. 

In addition, the audit for specific purposes authority was later confirmed by Article 5 letters a and f of Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning Laws and Regulations. As a result, there is potential of abuse of power by the Audit Board, which can hamper oversight of the management and accountability of state finances. If this happens, the Petitioners will suffer a loss when carrying out his duties as an academic in explaining the constitutionality of the authority of audit for specific purposes to students, even though the state agency in question has obtained an unqualified opinion (WTP) prior to conducting a financial or performance audit. Petitioner III felt that her constitutional rights had been impaired because she did not get certainty of what was learned in the classroom related to the authority of the authority of audit for specific purposes, which is apparently not in line with existing provisions.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar reminded the litigating parties that the next session would be held on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 11:00 WIB to listen to the statement of the Relevant Party, the Audit Board (BPK). (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti