Use of KPU funds

The Jakarta Post of March 21 published the audit report of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) on the General Elections Commission (KPU). The report questioned the funds spent by KPU in connection with the 1999 elections. The funds in question is Rp 117 billion provided by the United Nations Development Program for KPU.

A couple of official statements regarding the audit findings were made. The most interesting statements were made by House Speaker Akbar Tandjung and KPU deputy chairman Adnan Buyung Nasution. Their statements stimulate a further question that needs satisfactory constitutional clarification.

Mr. Tandjung said: "The House would also follow up the BPK's findings and would entrust the National Police and the Attorney General's Office to investigate the report".

There is nothing wrong with this statement, except the words "also" should be omitted or changed to "must". The 1945 Constitution, Chapter VIII, Article 23, subarticle (5) provides that "to verify state financial accountability, a Supreme Audit Agency shall be established ... The result of the verification should be reported to the House of Representatives".

The above constitutional provision requires that the House of Representatives (DPR) must take the initial step to follow up on BPK's audit findings until all audit recommendations are resolved and closed. This is done by requiring the Office of the President to take further actions. Top government apparatus such as the National Police and the Attorney General's Office, in case of criminal cases, shall take immediate action to investigate the suspected abuse of funds as reported by the auditors and must finally recover the amount and hand it over to the State Treasury.

Mr. Nasution's remark also deserves further clarification of whether the KPU chairman can reject any recommendation for an audit by the KPU management when some impropriety is suspected. The question is not only that an audit is required if and when impropriety is suspected. An audit of public funds is a must regardless of impropriety being suspected. So, it is against the law if a government official, who is held accountable for public funds entrusted to him/her -- let alone whether irregularities or suspicions are in the air -- prevented an audit of the public funds.

CORNELIS A. BOEKY

Jakarta