Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Kartini L. Makmur, Andin Aditya Rahman
State-owned enterprises could potentially fall outside the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) in the near future.
This will occur if the recently filed judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) under Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances is granted by the Constitutional Court.
The judicial review was filed by the State-Owned Enterprises Law Forum and Strategic Issues Study Center—both from the University of Indonesia.
The applicants are arguing that state-owned and regional-owned enterprises exploit government support to generate additional revenue. It is claimed that this is discriminatory to private companies.
It is further argued that Government equity in state-owned and regional-owned enterprises is primarily used by these entities for their own purposes and not to provide returns to the State.
If the judicial review is granted by the Constitutional Court, this will mean that the assets of every government institution established under a law will be treated as separate to State asset and as assets of the entity itself.
As a consequence, BPK will not be able to audit government institutions such as the Financial Services Authority, Bank Indonesia, the Social Security Agency, and the Indonesian Deposit Insurance Corporation, as well as state-owned and regional-owned enterprises.
“If state-assets are separated from state finances, BPK will not be able to examine the financials of these institutions,” stated Hasan Bisri, Deputy Chairman of BPK, during a seminar titled “Separation of State Assets” in Jakarta on Thursday.
The main concern is, of course, BPK will be unable to detect corruption in these government institutions which will undermine the anti-corruption efforts of the Government.
“If it is granted then it is not in line with the anti-corruption efforts that we are currently promoting, that we are fighting for,” asserted Hasan.
Hasan also assured that stakeholders of state-owned enterprises need not worry about corruption allegations if their company suffers losses. BPK makes a distinct for losses caused by typical business risks and losses arising due to unlawful acts.
On the other hand, Gatot Suwondo, President Director of Bank Negara Indonesia, admitted that such a fear lurks in the shadow of every business decision, mainly caused by concerns of corruption allegations if a certain business decision is perceived as causing a loss to the State and possibly satisfying the legal elements to establish corruption.
Furthermore, state-owned banks must comply with more laws than private commercial banks, such as the State Finance Law and Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001.
The President Director, however, asserted that the main problem is not the number of laws that must be complied by state-owned banks but rather conflicts and inconsistencies in such laws.
“We don’t have a problem with being bound by ten or even twenty laws, provided that these laws are harmonious and do not conflict with each other,” explained Gatot.
Gatot continued that the board of directors of state-owned banks are frequently baffled by laws and regulations that are applicable to state-owned banks. One example is the company asset separation in limited liability companies.
According to Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, company assets are owned by the company. The equity holder of the limited liability company only acts as a shareholder, which does not entail personal property.
However, according to Gatot, Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises contains provisions that conflict with this principle under the Indonesian Company Law.
“In the State-Owned Enterprises Law, company assets are State assets. So this is like an asset being owned by the wife but with the husband being encumbered with liability. If these provisions were in harmony, state-owned banks could grow even larger,” he concluded.
(hot/kc)
Kartini L. Makmur, Andin Aditya Rahman
State-owned enterprises could potentially fall outside the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) in the near future.
This will occur if the recently filed judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) under Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances is granted by the Constitutional Court.
The judicial review was filed by the State-Owned Enterprises Law Forum and Strategic Issues Study Center—both from the University of Indonesia.
The applicants are arguing that state-owned and regional-owned enterprises exploit government support to generate additional revenue. It is claimed that this is discriminatory to private companies.
It is further argued that Government equity in state-owned and regional-owned enterprises is primarily used by these entities for their own purposes and not to provide returns to the State.
If the judicial review is granted by the Constitutional Court, this will mean that the assets of every government institution established under a law will be treated as separate to State asset and as assets of the entity itself.
As a consequence, BPK will not be able to audit government institutions such as the Financial Services Authority, Bank Indonesia, the Social Security Agency, and the Indonesian Deposit Insurance Corporation, as well as state-owned and regional-owned enterprises.
“If state-assets are separated from state finances, BPK will not be able to examine the financials of these institutions,” stated Hasan Bisri, Deputy Chairman of BPK, during a seminar titled “Separation of State Assets” in Jakarta on Thursday.
The main concern is, of course, BPK will be unable to detect corruption in these government institutions which will undermine the anti-corruption efforts of the Government.
“If it is granted then it is not in line with the anti-corruption efforts that we are currently promoting, that we are fighting for,” asserted Hasan.
Hasan also assured that stakeholders of state-owned enterprises need not worry about corruption allegations if their company suffers losses. BPK makes a distinct for losses caused by typical business risks and losses arising due to unlawful acts.
On the other hand, Gatot Suwondo, President Director of Bank Negara Indonesia, admitted that such a fear lurks in the shadow of every business decision, mainly caused by concerns of corruption allegations if a certain business decision is perceived as causing a loss to the State and possibly satisfying the legal elements to establish corruption.
Furthermore, state-owned banks must comply with more laws than private commercial banks, such as the State Finance Law and Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001.
The President Director, however, asserted that the main problem is not the number of laws that must be complied by state-owned banks but rather conflicts and inconsistencies in such laws.
“We don’t have a problem with being bound by ten or even twenty laws, provided that these laws are harmonious and do not conflict with each other,” explained Gatot.
Gatot continued that the board of directors of state-owned banks are frequently baffled by laws and regulations that are applicable to state-owned banks. One example is the company asset separation in limited liability companies.
According to Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, company assets are owned by the company. The equity holder of the limited liability company only acts as a shareholder, which does not entail personal property.
However, according to Gatot, Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises contains provisions that conflict with this principle under the Indonesian Company Law.
“In the State-Owned Enterprises Law, company assets are State assets. So this is like an asset being owned by the wife but with the husband being encumbered with liability. If these provisions were in harmony, state-owned banks could grow even larger,” he concluded.
(hot/kc)