Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Novrieza Rahmi, Andin Aditya Rahman
Facing charges of corruption, Indar Atmanto, the former President Director of PT. Indosat Mega Media (IM2), has parried back with a lawsuit against the Agency for Finance and Development Supervision (Badan Pengawas Keuangan dan Pembangunan – BPKP), filed on 9 January 2013 at the State Administrative Court.
The former President Director is a defendant in a broader entanglement that centers around the alleged exploitation of Indosat’s licensed 3G frequency by its unlicensed subsidiary, IM2.
The corruption charges against the former telecom chief are ultimately premised on the concept that he caused state losses; in this new lawsuit, the defendant aims to void those calculations of state loss by arguing that they are illegitimate.
Atmanto’s attorney Erick S Paat argued that according to prevailing laws and regulations, BPKP does not have the authority to calculate state losses, and thus the charges against him (of causing state losses) are moot.
“Based on Government Regulation No. 7 of 2009 on Types and Tariffs on Non-tax State Revenues, and Law No. 15 of 2006 on Financial Auditing Agency, the Financial Auditing Agency should be the authorized body to calculate state loss in IM2’s corruption case,” said Paat in a press release, Wednesday (9/1).
Erick also noted that the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, as the telecommunication regulator, had previously asserted that the cooperation between Indosat and IM2 was lawful.
Different Roles: BPKP and BPK
BPKP is non-departmental and responsible directly to the President. It supervises all state finances in state development, according to Presidential Decree No. 103 of 2001 on Position, Duties, Functions, Authorities, Organizational Structure, and Procedures of Non-departmental Government Institutes (“Decree”). It has the authority to audit anything even remotely associated with state funds, and can examine any document it feels necessary.
On the other hand, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan – BPK) is an independent government institution that is responsible to examine state financials in governmental institutions and bodies, based on Article 2 and 6 of Law No. 15 of 2006 on BPK (“BPK Law”).
BPK does not have as broad investigative and supervisory authority, and—unlike the BPKP—must report all of its findings to the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representative Council (DPD), and People’s Legislative Council (DPRD).
Most critically in this case, the BPK is also among other things directly mandated to assess state loss from unlawful management of state funds.
BPKP Response
Tri Wibowo, the Head of Public Relations for the BPKP, claimed not to have received notice of Indar’s lawsuit when contacted by the press (9/1).
However, relating to the lawsuit, he argued that: “Indeed, this is frequently questioned. But, there’s a Constitutional Court decision which states that BPKP is authorized to calculate state loss, it is attached to the Law on KPK [(Corruption Eradication Commission)].”
The Constitutional Court decision is No. 31/ PUU-X/ 2012 dated 8 October 2012, which stated that the KPK can coordinate with other agencies—including the BPKP—and said that the BPKP is authorized to calculate state loss, in accordance to the Decree.
The Constitutional Court decision also agreed that the BPKP is the government’s internal supervisory body that is authorized to execute investigative audits, in accordance to the Regulation.
(eli)
Novrieza Rahmi, Andin Aditya Rahman
Facing charges of corruption, Indar Atmanto, the former President Director of PT. Indosat Mega Media (IM2), has parried back with a lawsuit against the Agency for Finance and Development Supervision (Badan Pengawas Keuangan dan Pembangunan – BPKP), filed on 9 January 2013 at the State Administrative Court.
The former President Director is a defendant in a broader entanglement that centers around the alleged exploitation of Indosat’s licensed 3G frequency by its unlicensed subsidiary, IM2.
The corruption charges against the former telecom chief are ultimately premised on the concept that he caused state losses; in this new lawsuit, the defendant aims to void those calculations of state loss by arguing that they are illegitimate.
Atmanto’s attorney Erick S Paat argued that according to prevailing laws and regulations, BPKP does not have the authority to calculate state losses, and thus the charges against him (of causing state losses) are moot.
“Based on Government Regulation No. 7 of 2009 on Types and Tariffs on Non-tax State Revenues, and Law No. 15 of 2006 on Financial Auditing Agency, the Financial Auditing Agency should be the authorized body to calculate state loss in IM2’s corruption case,” said Paat in a press release, Wednesday (9/1).
Erick also noted that the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, as the telecommunication regulator, had previously asserted that the cooperation between Indosat and IM2 was lawful.
Different Roles: BPKP and BPK
BPKP is non-departmental and responsible directly to the President. It supervises all state finances in state development, according to Presidential Decree No. 103 of 2001 on Position, Duties, Functions, Authorities, Organizational Structure, and Procedures of Non-departmental Government Institutes (“Decree”). It has the authority to audit anything even remotely associated with state funds, and can examine any document it feels necessary.
On the other hand, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan – BPK) is an independent government institution that is responsible to examine state financials in governmental institutions and bodies, based on Article 2 and 6 of Law No. 15 of 2006 on BPK (“BPK Law”).
BPK does not have as broad investigative and supervisory authority, and—unlike the BPKP—must report all of its findings to the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representative Council (DPD), and People’s Legislative Council (DPRD).
Most critically in this case, the BPK is also among other things directly mandated to assess state loss from unlawful management of state funds.
BPKP Response
Tri Wibowo, the Head of Public Relations for the BPKP, claimed not to have received notice of Indar’s lawsuit when contacted by the press (9/1).
However, relating to the lawsuit, he argued that: “Indeed, this is frequently questioned. But, there’s a Constitutional Court decision which states that BPKP is authorized to calculate state loss, it is attached to the Law on KPK [(Corruption Eradication Commission)].”
The Constitutional Court decision is No. 31/ PUU-X/ 2012 dated 8 October 2012, which stated that the KPK can coordinate with other agencies—including the BPKP—and said that the BPKP is authorized to calculate state loss, in accordance to the Decree.
The Constitutional Court decision also agreed that the BPKP is the government’s internal supervisory body that is authorized to execute investigative audits, in accordance to the Regulation.
(eli)