Administrative law expert of Atma Jaya University Yogyakarta W. Riawan Tjandra delivering his statement in the judicial review hearing of the Audit Board (BPK) Law, Thursday (24/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The audit for specific purposes (PDTT) is a crucial component of the Audit Board\'s examination of state finances. Therefore, it is required if theire is indication of state losses. The purpose of the examination is to find facts and evidence of indication of state losses due to abuse or misuse of authority in the use of state finances.
This was conveyed by administrative law expert of Atma Jaya University Yogyakarta W. Riawan Tjandra in the seventh session of the judicial review hearing of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK) and Law No. 15 of 2004 on State Financial Management & Accountability Audit in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Thursday (24/1/2020).
"The Government and the House\'s decision to include specific audit as a material for the Audit Board and the State Financial Management & Accountability Audit Law is the authority of the Government to form open legal policy," Riawan explained in a session presided over by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman.
Implementation of Authority
Riawan further mentioned that some of the considerations of lawmakers to include specific audit includes the authority to regulate the examination of state financial management responsibility given to the Audit Board as a free and independent examining body. Thus, the authority to conduct audits for specific purposes is the implementation of the Audit Board\'s authority. It is also not a new legal norm, but a consequence of the responsibility on state finances.
Riawan also explained that specific audit is intended to ensure compliance to and implementation of constitutional norms and principles in the 1945 Constitution through compliance to all legal subjects or state financial user entities against statutory regulations. Based on the National Financial Auditing Standard (SPKN), Riawan added, audit for specific purposes aims to provide conclusions on agreed upon examination, review, or procedure.
"In the context of state administrative law, audit for specific purposes in law enforcement is related to corruption precisely to meet the basis of applicable laws and regulations and general principles of good governance," Riawan explained.
Types of Examination
In the same session, the Government\'s witness Sumiyati said that the Petitioners believe that the Audit Board\'s authority to carry out audit for specific purposes is unconstitutional because it is not in accordance with its constitutional authority in the 1945 Constitution. She revealed that in the discussion of the Bill on State Financial Management & Accountability and the Audit Board Bill there was requests from other institutions to conduct state financial audit if there was a financial/performance issue that needs to be explored further. Therefore, the House, the Government, and the Audit Board agreed not to use a certain term or type of examination, but the term "audit for specific purposes" so that the Audit Board as the highest examining body can carry out the mandate it receives.
Sumiyati added that audit for specific purposes was chosen because in international best practices, the types of audit always evolve following the dynamics of the organization or environment in which the audit institution is located. Therefore, a flexible formula was chosen. And to maintain its governance, inspection standards were set by the Audit Board after consultation with the Government.
"To prevent abuse of power, the Government and the House agreed to establish legal norms as outlined in Article 5 of the State Financial Management & Accountability Law, which regulates that audits are carried out based on inspection standards," she explained.
In the case No. 54/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by lecturers Ibnu Sina Chandranegara (Petitioner I) and Aulia Kasanova (Petitioner II), and student Kexia Goutama (Petitioner III), the Petitioners argue that Article 6 paragraph (3) of the BPK Law and Article 4 paragraph (1) of the State Financial Management Law are unconstitutional.
Petitioners I and II 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.
The next session will commence on Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:00 WIB to hear the statements of experts for the Government. (Sri Pujianti/LA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Friday, January 24, 2020 | 15:08 WIB 273