Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
During the judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances (State Finance Law) at the Constitutional Court on Monday, professor of law Nindyo Pramono, explained that between various laws there are inconsistencies on how the funds of state-owned enterprise (BUMN) are categorized with respect to their status as State assets.
According to the State Finance Law, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) Law, the Eradication of Corruption Law, the Implementation of a Clean and Free of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Law, and the Committee for State Accounts Receivable Law, BUMN funds are part of the State’s assets.
However, in the BUMN Law, the Limited Liability Company Law, the Banking Law, and the Capital Market Law, all of these laws expressly state that BUMN funds are company assets.
Nindyo further explained that the theory of the separation between a BUMN’s assets and State’s assets has become a well-accepted doctrine among professors of law in Indonesia.
Nonetheless, Nindyo said there is no single law that boldly incorporates this doctrine in its text, which has led to this currently existing grey area.
“If we were consistent in implementing this doctrine, BPK has no authority to audit BUMN funds and assets because they are not part of the State’s assets. Moreover, pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Law, a BUMN that manages public funds may only be audited by public accountants,” explained Nandyo.
Also appearing during the judicial review proceeding was another professor of law, Erman Radjagukguk. He explained that funds preserved in a BUMN that is established in form of an incorporated business entity should not be considered State’s assets. The State is only entitled to claim the funds if the BUMN is established in the form of limited partnership or professional partnership (firma).
“If the BUMN is established in form on of limited partnership or firma, then the State is entitled to all of the assets and also responsible for all liabilities,” concluded Erman.
As previously mentioned, the judicial review was filed by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Indonesia (CSS UI) and the Legal Forum of BUMN. The applicant argues that Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances has the potential to violate the constitutional rights of society, legal entities, and the State because these Articles imply a mix between BUMN funds and State funds.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
During the judicial review of Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances (State Finance Law) at the Constitutional Court on Monday, professor of law Nindyo Pramono, explained that between various laws there are inconsistencies on how the funds of state-owned enterprise (BUMN) are categorized with respect to their status as State assets.
According to the State Finance Law, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) Law, the Eradication of Corruption Law, the Implementation of a Clean and Free of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Law, and the Committee for State Accounts Receivable Law, BUMN funds are part of the State’s assets.
However, in the BUMN Law, the Limited Liability Company Law, the Banking Law, and the Capital Market Law, all of these laws expressly state that BUMN funds are company assets.
Nindyo further explained that the theory of the separation between a BUMN’s assets and State’s assets has become a well-accepted doctrine among professors of law in Indonesia.
Nonetheless, Nindyo said there is no single law that boldly incorporates this doctrine in its text, which has led to this currently existing grey area.
“If we were consistent in implementing this doctrine, BPK has no authority to audit BUMN funds and assets because they are not part of the State’s assets. Moreover, pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Law, a BUMN that manages public funds may only be audited by public accountants,” explained Nandyo.
Also appearing during the judicial review proceeding was another professor of law, Erman Radjagukguk. He explained that funds preserved in a BUMN that is established in form of an incorporated business entity should not be considered State’s assets. The State is only entitled to claim the funds if the BUMN is established in the form of limited partnership or professional partnership (firma).
“If the BUMN is established in form on of limited partnership or firma, then the State is entitled to all of the assets and also responsible for all liabilities,” concluded Erman.
As previously mentioned, the judicial review was filed by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Indonesia (CSS UI) and the Legal Forum of BUMN. The applicant argues that Articles 2 (g) and (i) of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances has the potential to violate the constitutional rights of society, legal entities, and the State because these Articles imply a mix between BUMN funds and State funds.
(hot/kc)