Parliamentary Budget Committee Offers Rich Pickings for Budget Thieve
The uncovering of cases of bribery within the Ministry of Labor and Transmigrations confirms the existence of people intent on embezzling State funds. Seknas FITRA assesses that the following factors have been at play in this situation:
1. The Fund for Accelerated Development of Local Infrastructure (DPPID) doubles up on other funding: DPPID funding for transmigration settlements made its first appearance in Section 27 paragraph 11 of the 2011 budget law. That law allocated Rp 6.31 trillion for the purpose, broken down as follows: Rp 613 billion for educational infrastructure; Rp 500 billion for transmigration settlements infrastructure; and Rp 5.2 trillion for other infrastructure. The problem was, however, that the Ministry of Labor and Transmigration also allocated—via a route other than the DPPID—Rp 460.4 billion for the same sorts of programs. The Ministry’s funding was channeled through a program for the development of transmigration sites co-administered with regional officials.
Ten regions receiving “co-administration” funding from the Ministry were also allocated DPPID funding. And both sets of funding were allocated for the same purposes: infrastructure within and between transmigration settlements and transmigration-related public facilities. The question arises: why should the same activities be funded twice via two different channels—the DPPID (a component of regional fiscal transfers) and direct Ministry funding placed under the recipient region’s control? Clearly double budgeting is a possibility here. The situation also offers rich pickings for budget thieves—not least because the project areas are located in regions with differing mechanisms for accountability.
2. The Budget Committee of the House of Representatives (DPR) (known as Banggar DPR) has exceeded its mandate: and in so doing it has given rise to these incidents of misappropriation. The fact that DPR sectoral Commission No. IX was unaware of these allocations and queried them confirmed that Banggar had exceeded the powers accorded it in Section 107 paragraph 2 of Law No 27/2009 on Indonesia’s parliamentary institutions. That paragraph reads: “Banggar shall only discuss allocations already agreed upon by sectoral commissions”. In this case, Banggar discussed allocation details direct with Ministry of Labor and Transmigration counterparts, without going through Committee IX. The DPR’s Standing Orders also make clear that allocations under the Special Allocation Fund (DAK) should be based on suggestions from regions and on technical criteria received from relevant DPR sectoral commissions.
3. The desire to spend money in DPR electorates has surreptitiously egged on would-be budget thieves. In the case of both the DPID (Fund for Strengthening of Local Infrastructure) established by Minister of Finance regulation (PMK) 25/2011 and the DPPID (Fund for Accelerated Development of Local Infrastructure) put in place by PMK 140/2011, it was the DPR’s Budget Committee which divided up the funds and decided which areas they should go to, without any set criteria being used. Thus money distributed under these two funds was susceptible to payment of kickbacks to Banggar members and to abuse as a source of pork-barreling. The two funding sources not only overlapped with each other but also with the DAK, given that all three were directed at the same 10 areas of activity. This triple budgeting was evident, for example, in infrastructure funding: 189 regions received allocations for roads totaling Rp 6.2 trillion from each funding source (the DPID, the DPPID and the DAK). So the question naturally arises: why are not these sources of funding brought together within the DAK and allocated on the basis of specified technical criteria?
4. In fact, both the DPID and the DPPID are not only illegal but are also in violation of the Constitution. Thus there is no reference to them in Law No. 33/2004 concerning Fiscal Balance between the Center and Regions. That law specifies that transfers to regions shall consist of fiscal balance funding (via the General Allocation Fund, the Revenue Sharing Fund and the Special Allocation Fund); funding for tasks delegated to regions; and funds for tasks co-administered by the center and regions. Accordingly, the DPID and the DPPID have no basis in law. As for the Constitution, it states—at Article 18A paragraph 2—that fiscal links between the Center and regions shall be established in a just way and in accordance with law. Given that DPID and DPPID allocations are not based on specific criteria and are not in accord with law No. 33/2004, both funds infringe the Constitution. Both of them were also the subject of Audit Board findings in 2010. Because of all this, on 25 August 2011, a coalition of Indonesian NGOs committed to welfare-directed budgeting—namely, Seknas FITRA, IHCS, the Initiative Group, PWYP, KAU, ASPPUK and P3M—made jointly filed a request for a judicial review by the Constitutional Court of the law on the revised 2011 budget with specific reference to its DPID and DPPID-related provisions.
The occurrence of these cases of bribery in transmigration settlements indicates that the opportunity for misappropriation of funds exists in other DPID/DPPID-funded infrastructure projects. Banggar’s exceeding the bounds of its authority is the root cause of the problem and has turned the DPID and the DPPID into little more than feeding troughs for budget thieves. Those thieves can work not only on Banggar itself (which after all determines both allocation levels and recipients) but also Banggar’s staff, government ministry staff, contractors, regional governments and other players with access to money originating from these two funds.
In light of all the above, Seknas FITRA believes it important that the following corrective action be taken. In particular, it:
1. requests the national Audit Board (BPK) to trace Ministry of Labor and Transmigration abuses back to Banggar, the source of the problem;
2. requests the BPK to conduct investigative audits of the Ministry of Labor and Transmigration, looking particularly at the possibility of overlap of transmigration settlements infrastructure funding provided in 10 regions by both the DPPID and the Ministry (as “co-administration” funds); and the possibility of triple budgeting in fields of activity other than infrastructure.
3. requests the DPR to amend its Standing Orders particularly on discussion of budgets within Banggar. The amendments should define Banggar’s power to discuss budgets and require that its discussions be transparent. They should also streamline the composition and membership of Banggar.
4. requests the Constitutional Court to give priority consideration to a judicial review of the revised 2011 budget law filed by a coalition of NGOs, so that the Court’s findings can become a watershed for efforts to prevent future repetitions of similar abuses.
5. requests the Ministry of Finance to be steadfast in not acceding to DPR wishes when it seeks to determine DPID and DPPID allocation levels; and to conduct an investigation of Ministry of Finance staff who have taken part in underhand action on these funds.
Yuna Farhan
Secretary-General
Seknas FITRA
Jakarta, 23 October 2011
Tel +62 (0) 8161860874
Terungkapnya praktek penyuapan di Kemenakertransmengkonfirmasi adanya bandit-bandit anggaran yang menggerogoti anggaran Negara. Seknas FITRA mengidentifikasi akar persoalan kasus suap seperti berikut ini :
1. Dana Percepatan Pembangunan Infrastruktur Daerah (DPPID) Kawasan Transmigrasi, Tumpang Tindih. DPPID untuk Kawasan Transmigrasi baru ada pada UU APBN-P 2011 pasal 27 ayat 11,DPPID dialokasikan sebesar Rp. 6,31 trilyun dengan rincian peruntukan; Infrastruktur Pendidikan Rp. 613 miliar, Infrastruktur Kawasan Transmigrasi Rp. 500 miliar dan Infrastukur lainnya: Rp. 5,2 trilyun. Persoalannya, Kemenakertrans juga mengalokasikan program yang sama, namun melalui mekanisme tugas pembantuan , program pembangunan pemukiman kawasan transmigrasi senilai Rp. 469,4 miliar.
Sepuluh daerah yang telah mendapat alokasi tugas pembantuan memperoleh juga DPPID, yang diantaranya untuk kegiatan yang sama infrastruktur intra & antar kawasan transmigrasi dan fasilitas umum social transmigrasi. Menjadi pertanyaan disini, kenapa kegiatan yang sama dialokasikan dalam bentuk yang berbeda : DPPID (transfer daerah) dan Tugas Pembantuan (alokasi pada Kemenakertrans yang dikuasakan pada daerah) dana ini juga berpotensi tumpang tindih. Selain tumpang tindih, tujuh daerah transmigrasi ini juga berpotensi jadi ajang bancakan bandit anggaran, mengingat proyek ini berada di daerah dan mekanisme pertanggungjawaban yang berbeda.
2. Badan Anggaran Melampaui Kewenangan. Munculnya kasus suap Kemenakertrans terjadi akibat Badan Anggaran yang melampaui kewenangan yang dimiliki. Adanyapertanyaan dari Komisi IX yang tidak mengetahui alokasi dana ini, menunjukan telah terjadi pelanggaran pasal 107 ayat 2 UU 27/2009 tentang MD3 yang menyatakan Banggar hanya membahas alokasi anggaran yang sudah diputuskan oleh Komisi Artinya Banggar telah melampaui kewenangannya karena langsung membahas bersama mitra Kemekertrans tanpa melalui Komisi IX. Padahal, sesuai Tatib DPR, untuk alokasi DAK harus berdasarkan usulan daerah dan kriteria teknis dari Komisi yang bersangkutan.
3. DPID dan DPPID Dana Aspirasi Terselubung Menyuburkan Bandit Anggaran. Baik DPID yang ditetapkan pada PMK 25/2011 dan DPPID pada PMK 140/2011, besaran alokasi dan daerah penerima kedua dana ini ditetapkan oleh Banggar, tanpa adanya kriteria yang jelas. Kedua alokasi ini membuka terjadinya kick back kepada Banggar dan menjadi dana pork barrel. Kedua alokasi ini juga tumpang tindih satu sama lain juga dengan DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus) karena memiliki peruntukan yang sama. Baik DPID, DPPID dan DAK diperuntukan untuk 10 (sepuluh) bidang yang sama. Triple Budget ini misalnya dapat dilihat dari bidang infrastruktur, terdapat 189 daerah yang mendapatkan alokasi infrastruktur jalan, bersumber dari DPID, DPPID dan DAK dengan total alokasi Rp. 6,2 trilyun. Menjadi pertanyaan, kenapa dana ini tidak disatukan dalam DAK yang alokasinya mempergunakan kriteria teknis tertentu.
4. DPID dan DPPID Ilegal dan Melanggar Konstitusi.Dana ini tidak dikenal dalam UU No 33 tahun 2004 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan Pusat dan Daerah. Dalam UU disebutkan, bahwa azas dana perimbangan meliputi azas desentralisasi (DAU, DBH dan DAK), Dekonsentrasi dan Tugas Pembantuan. Dengan demikian kedua dana ini bisa dikatakan sebagai dana illegal. Dalam Konstusi pasal 18A ayat 2, menyatakan hubungan keuangan pusat dan daerah diatur secara adil dan selarasa berdasarkan Undang-undang. Dengan tidak adanya kriteria yang digunakan dalam penyaluran DPID dan DPPID, serta tidak selaras dengan UU perimbangan, maka dana ini telah menabrak konstitusi. Kedua dana ini juga menjadi temuan BPK pada Audit 2010. Berkaitan dengan ini, pada tanggal 25 Agustus 2011, Koalisi LSM untuk APBN Kesejahteraan (FITRA, IHCS, Perkumpulan Prakarsa, PWYP, KAU, ASPPUK, P3M) telah menyampaikan gugatan Judicial Review terhadap UU APBN-P 2011, yang salah satunya berkaitan dengan DPID dan DPPID.
Kasus suap yang terjadi pada kawasan transmigrasi, berpeluang terjadi hampir disemua infrastruktur lain yang memperoleh alokasi DPID dan DPPID. Sumber persoalan ini terdapat pada Badan Anggaran yang telah melampaui kewenangan, sehingga menjadikan kedua alokasi ini sebagai ajang bancakan bandit anggaran. Selain Banggar sebagai penentu alokasi dan daerah, bandit anggaran dapat melibatkan Staff di Banggar, Staff di Kementerian, Kontraktor, Pemda, maupun aktor lain yang memiliki akses terhadap kedua alokasi ini.
Untuk itu Seknas FITRA memandang perlunya dilakukan perombakan dengan langkah-langkah berikut :
1. Meminta KPK untuk mengusut kasus Kemenakertrans sampai ke Badan Anggaran DPR sebagai sumber persoalan.
2. Meminta BPK untuk melakukan audit investigative pada kasus Kemanakertrans, khususnya berkaitan dengan kemungkinan dengan adanya tumpang tindih antara alokasi anggaran infrastruktur Transmigrasi pada Tugas Pembantuan dan DPPID di Sepuluh Daerah, serta triple budget pada bidang lain.
3. Meminta kepada DPR untuk melakukan perubahan TATIB DPR khususnya berkaitan dengan mekanisme pembahasan anggaran di Banggar, pembatasan kewenangan Banggar dan Transparansi pembahasan, serta perombakan di Banggar baik dari sisi komposisi maupun jumlah.
4. Meminta kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk memprioritaskan uji materi UU APBNP 2011 yang diajukan Koalisis LSM, sehingga putusan MK dapat dijadikan rujukan agar kasus ini tidak terulang kembali.
5. Meminta kepada Kementerian Keuangan untuk berani menolak keinginan DPR yang meminta mengalokasikan kedua dana ini dan melakukan pengusutan pada staff Kementerian Keuangan yang turut bermain di dalamnya
Jakarta, 18 September 2011
Yuna Farhan SekJen FITRA