Use of KPU funds

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