Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Suhartoyo, and Arief Hidayat at the panel judicial review hearing of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board, Tuesday (4/5/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, April 5, 2022 | 17:48 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of material judicial review of Article 13 letters f, i, and j of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK) on Tuesday, April 5, 2022. The case No. 29/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Boyamin Bin Saiman and Marselinus Edwin Hardian (Petitioners I-II).

At the hearing, the Petitioners were represented by counsel Kurniawan Adi Nugroho, who asserted that Article 13 letter f of Law No. 15 of 2006 potentially eliminated the Petitioners’ right to be selected as members of the BPK. He revealed that Petitioner I has not finished his undergraduate degree but is familiar with financial digressions that lead to state loss, meaning he has capability but is restricted by his education status to apply as a BPK member.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II is not yet 30 years old, thus does not meet a requirement set in the a quo article and cannot be selected as a BPK member. The Petitioners believe this potentially eliminates the rights of citizens insofar as they are not interpreted to be mature in science and technology. “Actually, age cannot be used as a parameter for maturity in terms of science and technology as well as attitude, behavior, and actions both in daily life and in relation to a position,” Kurniawan asserted.

In addition, the Petitioners asserted that the enactment of Article 13 letter j of the BPK Law, which stipulates that BPK members should have left a position in state financial management for at least two years, is unconstitutional if not interpreted to mean “not committing any digression and acts of corruption while holding a position as state finance management officer.”

“Because although one has left a position in state financial management for at least two years, if it is proven that they have committed any digression and acts of corruption while holding the position, they should not be given opportunity to be a BPK member or any other public office,” said Kurniawan at the bench chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

In fact, the Petitioners argued, those requirements are cumulative, not alternative, thus they must be met by anyone who apply as a BPK member.

In the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 13 letter f of the BPK Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as smart and astute in applying science and technology and Article 13 letter i of the BPK Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as mature in terms of application of science and technology.

“And to declare Article 13 letter j of the a quo Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as not ever committing any digression and acts of corruption while holding a position as state finance management officer,” Kurniawan stressed.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioners to observe the Constitutional Court Law, the Judiciary Law, and the Constitutional Court Regulation. “In the petition, you still use the old regulation. Also observe whether you have used the newly-revised Constitutional Court Law,” he said. He also suggested that they strengthen their legal standing.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioners to revise the petition so that the Court be convinced of their legal standing in relation to the requirements for prospective BPK members.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/7/2022 14:21 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---