Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Fathan Qorib, Andin Aditya Rahman
After becoming fully responsible for oversight of financial services earlier this year, the Financial Services Authority (“OJK”) must now face the reality that some parties may not like the power wields over the financial services sector.
This became evident when Law No. 21 of 2011on OJK (“OJK Law”) was sent by activists and civil groups to the Constitutional Court for review . These parties are arguing that OJK’s oversight function over the banking sector is unconstitutional.
Refly Harun, constitutional law expert, however, notes that Article 23D of the 1945 Constitutiondoes not explicitly state that the banking sector must be supervised by the Central Bank. As a consequence, the oversight function of the banking sector is not clearly allocated in Constitution, or in other words it is a grey area.
“So there is indeed a grey area here, except if the authority is clearly defined in the Constitution,” Mr. Harun stated to Hukumonline during a recent interview.
According to Mr. Harun, if the OJK takes over all authority and functions from Bank Indonesia (“BI”) as the Central Bank, then it is fair to say that the OJK’s existence contradicts the Constitution. However, if the OJK is only responsible for part of BI’s authorities, and BI still maintains its function, then the OJK is not unconstitutional.
“Therefore, if say the authorities given are parable to erasing the heart of the Central Bank, then it is certainly unconstitutional. But if there is only partial taking away of the authorities of the Central Bank that is given under the law, then in my opinion that is constitutional,” he explained.
During a separate interview, Ucok Sky Khadafi, Director of Investigation and Advocacy at the Budget Transparency Forum Indonesia (FITRA), put forward the counter view that the Constitution acknowledges BI as the sole state institution to oversee the banking sector.
“Under the Constitution, there is only the Central Bank. Therefore the OJK contradicts the Constitution,” he asserted.
The judicial review of the OJK Law itself was filed by a civil society group called the Defenders of National Economic Sovereignty (Tim Pembela Kedaulatan Ekonomi Bangsa). They argue that banking oversight by the OJK is not provided for in the 1945 Constitution.
Salamuddin Daeng, a member of the applicant group, says that the word “independent” under Article 1 (1) of the OJK Law is not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. Mr. Daeng explained that this word can only apply to BI as the nation’s Central Bank.
(hot/kc)
Fathan Qorib, Andin Aditya Rahman
After becoming fully responsible for oversight of financial services earlier this year, the Financial Services Authority (“OJK”) must now face the reality that some parties may not like the power wields over the financial services sector.
This became evident when Law No. 21 of 2011on OJK (“OJK Law”) was sent by activists and civil groups to the Constitutional Court for review . These parties are arguing that OJK’s oversight function over the banking sector is unconstitutional.
Refly Harun, constitutional law expert, however, notes that Article 23D of the 1945 Constitutiondoes not explicitly state that the banking sector must be supervised by the Central Bank. As a consequence, the oversight function of the banking sector is not clearly allocated in Constitution, or in other words it is a grey area.
“So there is indeed a grey area here, except if the authority is clearly defined in the Constitution,” Mr. Harun stated to Hukumonline during a recent interview.
According to Mr. Harun, if the OJK takes over all authority and functions from Bank Indonesia (“BI”) as the Central Bank, then it is fair to say that the OJK’s existence contradicts the Constitution. However, if the OJK is only responsible for part of BI’s authorities, and BI still maintains its function, then the OJK is not unconstitutional.
“Therefore, if say the authorities given are parable to erasing the heart of the Central Bank, then it is certainly unconstitutional. But if there is only partial taking away of the authorities of the Central Bank that is given under the law, then in my opinion that is constitutional,” he explained.
During a separate interview, Ucok Sky Khadafi, Director of Investigation and Advocacy at the Budget Transparency Forum Indonesia (FITRA), put forward the counter view that the Constitution acknowledges BI as the sole state institution to oversee the banking sector.
“Under the Constitution, there is only the Central Bank. Therefore the OJK contradicts the Constitution,” he asserted.
The judicial review of the OJK Law itself was filed by a civil society group called the Defenders of National Economic Sovereignty (Tim Pembela Kedaulatan Ekonomi Bangsa). They argue that banking oversight by the OJK is not provided for in the 1945 Constitution.
Salamuddin Daeng, a member of the applicant group, says that the word “independent” under Article 1 (1) of the OJK Law is not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. Mr. Daeng explained that this word can only apply to BI as the nation’s Central Bank.
(hot/kc)