Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Suhartoyo, and Arief Hidayat at the panel judicial review hearing of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board, Monday (4/18/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, April 18, 2022 | 10:43 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The second hearing of the material judicial review of Article 13 letters f, i, and j of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK) was held Constitutional Court (MK)  on Monday, April 18, 2022. The case No. 29/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Boyamin bin Saiman and Marselinus Edwin Hardian (Petitioners I-II).

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, Petitioner I said that his legal standing had been revised with the addition of his NPWP (tax identification number) and tax return of 2021. Article 23 was also added, relating to the independent BPK.

“[We] also added Article 31 paragraph 5 on science and technology, where adulthood and intelligence are tested in relation to psychological test,” he explained.

He added that the background of the petition had been revised in relation to the petitum. “All this was based on our understanding of the open legal policy, but we prioritize the judicial review of Article 13 j on the BPK Law, which stipulates that [the candidate] not be a [state finance management officer],” he explained.

He also stressed that the Petitioners’ petition served to stand by Nyoman Adhi. “When (Nyoman Adhi) has become a BPK leader without violating any provision if this petition is granted,” he said.

Also read: Requirements for BPK Members Questioned

At the preliminary hearing on April 5, the Petitioners 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.

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.”

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. They also requested that Article 13 letter j of the a quo Law be declare unconstitutional if not interpreted as not ever committing any digression and acts of corruption while holding a position as state finance management officer

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

Translation uploaded on 4/18/2022 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.

---