Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Fathan Qorib, Robert Sidauruk
Despite the ongoing judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2013 on State Finances at the Constitutional Court, the Government has prepared a Draft Bill in anticipation of the decision, namely Draft Bill on State and Regional Accounts Receivable (Draft Bill).
According to Director General of State Assets at the Ministry of Finance, Hadiyanto, the Draft Bill aims to harmonize the definition of “State’s assets” used in several laws.
Specific to the management of State-Owned Companies (BUMN), the Minister has said that the Draft Bill will distinguish between the accounts receivable of the State and those of BUMN.
“If the State has allocated funds to a BUMN, any rights and obligations arising from those funds will be borne by the BUMN. The State should not be responsible for any liabilities of a BUMN,” said Hadiyanto at the House of Representative Secretariat in Jakarta on Tuesday.
The Draft Bill, Hadiyanto explained, is in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court in its judicial review of Articles 4, 8, and 12 (1) of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 49 9f 1960 on the Committee for State Accounts Receivable. In the decision, the Constitutional Court held that the accounts receivable of a BUMN should not be billed by the State.
However, Hadiyanto emphasized that even though under the Draft Bill the Government recognizes the distinction between the State’s assets and those of a BUMN, Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2013 on State Finances remain in force and operational until the Constitutional Court determines otherwise.
“The Government performs its duties according to prevailing laws and regulations,” asserted Hadiyanto.
In response, Fauzi Achmad, member of Commission XI at the House, contends that the Draft Bill should solve the long standing debate regarding the distinction between State and BUMN assets.
Fauzi, however, said he could not guarantee that the House will have the same view as the Government on this issue.
Like other lawmakers, he believes that funds reserved in a BUMN belong to the State notwithstanding that the management of those funds is under the control of the BUMN itself.
Fauzi cited the example of the treatment of debt default on the books of BUMN banks. These banks, according to Fauzi, can only delete the relevant obligations from their balance sheet but are prohibited from abolishing the debt itself.
“It is a criminal act if a bank abolishes the debt as it equal to eliminating the accounts receivable of the State,” concluded Fauzi.
(hot/kc)
Fathan Qorib, Robert Sidauruk
Despite the ongoing judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2013 on State Finances at the Constitutional Court, the Government has prepared a Draft Bill in anticipation of the decision, namely Draft Bill on State and Regional Accounts Receivable (Draft Bill).
According to Director General of State Assets at the Ministry of Finance, Hadiyanto, the Draft Bill aims to harmonize the definition of “State’s assets” used in several laws.
Specific to the management of State-Owned Companies (BUMN), the Minister has said that the Draft Bill will distinguish between the accounts receivable of the State and those of BUMN.
“If the State has allocated funds to a BUMN, any rights and obligations arising from those funds will be borne by the BUMN. The State should not be responsible for any liabilities of a BUMN,” said Hadiyanto at the House of Representative Secretariat in Jakarta on Tuesday.
The Draft Bill, Hadiyanto explained, is in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court in its judicial review of Articles 4, 8, and 12 (1) of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 49 9f 1960 on the Committee for State Accounts Receivable. In the decision, the Constitutional Court held that the accounts receivable of a BUMN should not be billed by the State.
However, Hadiyanto emphasized that even though under the Draft Bill the Government recognizes the distinction between the State’s assets and those of a BUMN, Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2013 on State Finances remain in force and operational until the Constitutional Court determines otherwise.
“The Government performs its duties according to prevailing laws and regulations,” asserted Hadiyanto.
In response, Fauzi Achmad, member of Commission XI at the House, contends that the Draft Bill should solve the long standing debate regarding the distinction between State and BUMN assets.
Fauzi, however, said he could not guarantee that the House will have the same view as the Government on this issue.
Like other lawmakers, he believes that funds reserved in a BUMN belong to the State notwithstanding that the management of those funds is under the control of the BUMN itself.
Fauzi cited the example of the treatment of debt default on the books of BUMN banks. These banks, according to Fauzi, can only delete the relevant obligations from their balance sheet but are prohibited from abolishing the debt itself.
“It is a criminal act if a bank abolishes the debt as it equal to eliminating the accounts receivable of the State,” concluded Fauzi.
(hot/kc)