Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Fathan Qorib, Robert Sidauruk
The ongoing judicial review at the Constitutional Court in regard to the legal classification of state-owned companies’ (BUMN) finances as State finance has caught the attention of several commentators and interested parties.
Vice Chairman of Commission VI at the House of Representatives (DPR), Erik Satria Wardana uncovered several erroneous points in the petition at the conclusion of a coordination meeting with the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) on Tuesday at the DPR’s secretariat in Jakarta.
One of the mistakes noticed by Erik is that one of the applicants is the Head of a Legal Division at a State-owned Enterprise (BUMN).
“Management at a BUMN is part of the Government and are partners to legislators when drafting laws hence they cannot adopt the position of going against the Government in a judicial review process,” explained Erik.
Any discourse of a strict separation between the finance’s of a BUMN and State’s finances is, according to Erik, mistaken. He is of the view that all assets owned by a BUMN belong to the State, particularly if the BUMN is fully financed by the State through a State Capital Participation Scheme (Penyertaan Modal Negara).
One of Erik’s biggest concerns is that should the judges of the Constitutional Court grant the petition, the BPK will no longer have authority to audit the finances of BUMNs. He asserts that BUMNs should not be treated as private companies and must be subject to independent audit by the BPK.
Erik also disagrees with the contention that the management of a BUMN be subject to criminal charges if the business suffers financial losses. He asserts that criminal charges should only be imposed upon BUMN management if the requisite malicious intent is found at the time a business decision is made.
“If losses are suffered purely due to commercial reasons, then the Government should cover the losses. However, if fraud or corruption is involved then they (management) must be prosecuted,” added Erik.
In considering the ongoing debate, Yunus Husien, former Chairman of the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), said that the judicial review was filed because there is no uniform concept of “State’s assets” with the term defined differently under several laws .
“Several laws need to be synchronized to avoid multiple interpretations,” Yunus explained.
(DS/KC)
Fathan Qorib, Robert Sidauruk
The ongoing judicial review at the Constitutional Court in regard to the legal classification of state-owned companies’ (BUMN) finances as State finance has caught the attention of several commentators and interested parties.
Vice Chairman of Commission VI at the House of Representatives (DPR), Erik Satria Wardana uncovered several erroneous points in the petition at the conclusion of a coordination meeting with the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) on Tuesday at the DPR’s secretariat in Jakarta.
One of the mistakes noticed by Erik is that one of the applicants is the Head of a Legal Division at a State-owned Enterprise (BUMN).
“Management at a BUMN is part of the Government and are partners to legislators when drafting laws hence they cannot adopt the position of going against the Government in a judicial review process,” explained Erik.
Any discourse of a strict separation between the finance’s of a BUMN and State’s finances is, according to Erik, mistaken. He is of the view that all assets owned by a BUMN belong to the State, particularly if the BUMN is fully financed by the State through a State Capital Participation Scheme (Penyertaan Modal Negara).
One of Erik’s biggest concerns is that should the judges of the Constitutional Court grant the petition, the BPK will no longer have authority to audit the finances of BUMNs. He asserts that BUMNs should not be treated as private companies and must be subject to independent audit by the BPK.
Erik also disagrees with the contention that the management of a BUMN be subject to criminal charges if the business suffers financial losses. He asserts that criminal charges should only be imposed upon BUMN management if the requisite malicious intent is found at the time a business decision is made.
“If losses are suffered purely due to commercial reasons, then the Government should cover the losses. However, if fraud or corruption is involved then they (management) must be prosecuted,” added Erik.
In considering the ongoing debate, Yunus Husien, former Chairman of the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), said that the judicial review was filed because there is no uniform concept of “State’s assets” with the term defined differently under several laws .
“Several laws need to be synchronized to avoid multiple interpretations,” Yunus explained.
(DS/KC)