The petition revision hearing for Case No. 11/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, Wednesday (1/21/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A citizen named Hertikawati Sihotang has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 71 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law) against the 1945 Constitution before the Constitutional Court. The Petitioner of Case No. 11/PUU-XXIV/2026 questions the authority of the Minister of Finance to appoint public accountants to conduct audits of state-owned enterprises (BUMNs).

However, she did not attend the preliminary examination hearing scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 14:30 WIB. Despite having been lawfully and properly summoned and the hearing being delayed until it was opened at 14:47 WIB, the Petitioner remained absent without a valid reason.

“Accordingly, both Petitioners (in Case No. 5/PUU-XXIV/2026 and Case No. 11/PUU-XXIV/2026) are deemed not to be serious. Therefore, the hearings for both petitions are declared concluded and the session is adjourned,” stated Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, who presided over the hearing alongside Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani.

In her petition, the Petitioner challenges the provision that grants authority to the Minister, as a representative of the government, to appoint public accountants to audit SOEs without involving the BPK (Audit Board of Indonesia) as an independent state institution. According to the Petitioner, the minister’s appointment power under Article 71 paragraph (1) of the BUMN Law indirectly shifts the constitutional authority of the BPK.

Given that the capital of SOEs wholly or predominantly originates from separated state assets, audits of SOE finances should, in substance, be inseparable from audits of state financial management. Conceptually, financial audits conducted by public accountants are fundamentally different from state financial audits carried out by a state institution vested with constitutional authority.

The Petitioner argued that audits conducted by a constitutionally authorized state institution are inherently more independent than those conducted by public accountants. Public accountants are professionals who operate based on contractual relationships, and their independence largely depends on the party that appoints and remunerates them.

In the context of Article 71 paragraph (1) of the BUMN Law, public accountants are appointed by the minister, thereby placing them structurally in a relationship of dependence on executive power. When audits of SOEs are fully delegated to a ministerial appointment mechanism, such audits risk losing objectivity and independence, as they may be influenced by executive interests and discretion, thereby giving rise to conflicts of interest.

According to the Petitioner, the provision is overly broad and fails to set clear limits regarding the scope, purpose, and outcomes of such audits. The minister would have wide subjective discretion to determine when an audit is deemed necessary, what its objectives are, and how its results are to be interpreted and utilized.

This condition, the Petitioner contended, could potentially give rise to selective, inconsistent, and non-transparent audit practices, as they would depend heavily on the policies and interests of those in power. The Petitioner asserted that the provision indirectly risks shifting or even eliminating the constitutional function of the BPK as the sole state institution that is free and independent in auditing the management of state finances and assets.

For reference, Article 71 paragraph (1) of the BUMN Law reads: “In order to safeguard the interests and business continuity of State-Owned Enterprises, the Minister may appoint public accountants to conduct audits of State-Owned Enterprises.” In the petitums, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare Article 71 paragraph (1) of the BUMN Law contrary to Article 23E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force.

Explore case No. 11/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : N. Rosi
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---