EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT

A CASE STUDY OF STATE AUDITORY BOARD OF INDONESIA

For Oversight of State Administration Final Assignment

Submitted by :
Julius Alberto Liem (18/425471/HK/21560)
Laila Regina Francienne (18/423046/HK/21438)
Brigieth Rungo Rata (18/429259/HK/21706)
Alya Lathifah Sofhian (18/423027/HK/21419)
Sara Milla Maria I. (19/451545/NHK/22240)

Faculty of Law
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta
A. Background
 In a democratic country, the taxpayers have the right to oversee and scrutinize
the Government in terms of its expenditure. According to the 1945 Constitution, the
authority and task to oversee the Government’s expenditure is given to the State
Auditory Board.1
In every year, the state budget is designed by the House of Representative. At
the end of each year, the Government need to account for its expenditure to the House
of Representative. The oversee function is done by the State Auditory Board and the
result of the audit is then conferred to the House of Representative.2
The State Auditory Board holds a big responsibility to audit for the expenditure
of each state agency. In order to ensure its independence, the Constitutions drafter
explicitly mentioned the independence of the State Auditory Board in article 23(1) of
the 1945 Constitution3 as a way to ensure its independence.
The State Auditory Board is further detailed in Law 15/2006 of the State
Auditory Board which replaces Law no. 5/1973.

B. Issues
In this paper, we want to analyze the legal basis of the State Auditory Board as
well as the general structure and function of the State Auditory Board. We will also
conduct case analysis about the audit done by the State Auditory Board.

C. Theoretical Review
The State Auditory Board came into existence when the State of Indonesia was
first created. In the original 1945 Constitution, the State Auditory Board is mentioned
in article 23(5) of the Constitution. As one of the state’s oldest institutions, the State
Auditory Board has gone through a lot of process.
 In the original 1945 Constitution, the State Auditory Board is mentioned in
article 23(5) of the Constitution.
> this lead to the creation of state institutions with the task to do the financial
audit. These were called e.g. Algemene Rekenkamer in the Nederlandsch Indie.4 In the
old era, before the reform, the legal basis was the Indische Comptabiliteits Wet
Staatsblad no. 488/1925 and Instructie en verdere bepalingen voor de Algemene
Rekenkamer Staatsblad no. 320 of 1933.5
 IN THE OLD ERA, problem of independence. Due to the audit board being
part of the government. (under the command of the president)  President Sukarno
acted as the Supreme Auditor whereas the head and member of the State Auditory
Board is considered as coordinating ministry under the command of the President.

1
“Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945” (1945).
2
Tim Penyusun Naskah Komprehensif Proses dan Hasil Perubahan UUD 1945, Keuangan, Perekonomian
Nasional, Dan Kesejahteraan Nasional, Naskah Komprehensif Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara
Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945: Latar Belakang, Proses, Dan Hasil Pembahasan, 1992-2002, VII (Jakarta:
Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, n.d.).
3
Undang-undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
4
Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI) Panitia
Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI), III (Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, 1995).
5
BPK RI Menunaikan Amanat Konstitusi (Jakarta: Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia, 2009).
  the State Auditory Board has the authority to do audit, oversight, and
research of the state expenditure (INCLUDING ALL KIND OF GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURE) to tackle problems of CORRUPTION, maladministration,
bureacratization


At the time when the Constitution was first drafted, one of the issues that
Soepomo brought was the creation of a state institution whose authority is to do an audit
on government expenditure, like the Algemene Rekenkamer in the Nederlandsch Indie.6
In conducting its task, before a new regulation was drafted, the State Auditory Board
was regulated under Indische Comptabiliteits Wet Staatsblad no. 488/1925 and
Instructie en verdere bepalingen voor de Algemene Rekenkamer Staatsblad no. 320 of
1933.7
Furthermore, in the Old Order, particularly in the Guided Democracy era, the
State Auditory Board is part of the Government. President Sukarno acted as the
Supreme Auditor whereas the head and member of the State Auditory Board is
considered as coordinating ministry under the command of the President.
In order to smoothen the process of the Indonesian revolution, the State
Auditory Board has the authority to do audit, oversight, and research of the state
expenditure in order to reduce hindrances, as bureaucratization, misadministration, and
corruption. State expenditure as mentioned here is not limited only to annual state
budget, but all kind of government’s expenditure such as SOE’s expenditure and
government’s foundation expenditure.
After doing those research and audit, the State Auditory Board has the
responsibility to give the audit to the President. The president then confers the audit to
the House of Representative.
In the New Order era, the State Auditory Board is regulated by Law no. 5 of
1973 as well as TAP MPRS No. X/MPRS/1966 and article 10 of TAP MPR No.
IV/MPR/1973.
In the said Law, it is mentioned that the State Auditory Board is an independent
institution in conducting audits on the management of the state finance, however it does
not have a higher hierarchy than the Government.
The scope of audit for the State Auditory Board consist of those of state budgets,
regional budgets, state owned enterprise, and all other things considered as the state
wealth. However, in the implementation, the State Auditory Board is not allowed to
audit the finances of the SOE.8 The State Auditory Board has a responsibility to report
to the House of Representative, however in the New Order era, if the State Auditory
Board found any crime or misadministration, they must report it to the executive
branch.

6
Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI) Panitia
Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI), III (Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, 1995).
7
BPK RI Menunaikan Amanat Konstitusi (Jakarta: Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia, 2009).
8
Richo Andi Wibowo, “Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan RI” (n.d.).
 After the reformations, the articles regulating State Auditory Board in the
Constitution was amended. Before, the State Auditory Board had been only mentioned
in one article, article 23(5). After the amendment, there was one section fully dedicated
to the State Auditory Board, section VIIIA.
In the amended constitution, it is mentioned that further regulations on the State
Auditory Board shall be regulated under the law. The law concerning State Auditory
Board is Law no. 15 of 2006.9
In the said Law, it is stated that the State Auditory Board consists of nine
members whose membership is established through the Presidential Decision. Those
nine members consist of one chairman concurrently acting as members, one vice
chairman concurrently as member, and seven members who hold the position for five
years and following that she/he is eligible for another one subsequent term of office.
State Auditory Board members could be dismissed either through dishonorable
dismissal or honorable dismissal.
The recruitment for the State Auditory Board membership is done by the House
of Representative with taking into account the consideration of Regional Representative
Board. The Regional Representative Board consideration is in written and mention the
names of the candidates and should be delivered to House of Representative within one
month since the date of the acceptance.
There are three types of audit that can be conducted by the State Auditory Board.
The first type of audit is the financial audit. Financial audit is an examination of the
financial statements of the Central and Local Government. This financial audit is done
by the State Auditory Board in order to provide an opinion statement about the
qualification of the information presented in the Government’s financial statement.10
The second type of audit is the performance audit. Performance audit is an
examination of the management of state finances which consist of economic aspect
examination, efficiency aspect examination, and effectivity aspect examination. Article
23E of the 1945 Constitution mandates the State Auditory Board to carry out
examination on the performance of the management of state’s finance. The purpose of
this examination is to identify and verify that activities financed by the state budget are
carried out economically.11
The third type of audit is audit with a specific purpose. Audit with a specific
purpose is audit that is neither considered as financial nor performance audit. The
objectives include but are not limited to other matters in the financial sector,
investigative audit, and audit on the government’s internal control system.12
Determination of central/regional financial losses that are suspected of criminal
offenses can only be done based on performance audit, and not based on financial audit.

9
Pemerintah Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2006 Tentang Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, Lembaran
Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2006 Nomor 4654 (Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara, 2006),
http://www.jdih.kemenkeu.go.id/fullText/2006/15TAHUN2006UU.htm.
10
Ahmad Abdul Haq, “Pemeriksaan Keuangan Negara – Wikiapbn,” accessed September 22, 2019,
https://www.wikiapbn.org/pemeriksaan-keuangan-negara/.
11
Haq.
12
Haq.
 An investigative examination can be carried out to determine the lack of money, goods,
and securities due to civil or criminal wrongdoing or negligence. The result of the
management and state’s financial responsibility which have been handed to House of
Representative, Regional Representative Board, and Regional House of Representative
is declared open to the public. 13
According to Law 15/2006 on State Auditory Board, the audit result is arranged
and handed in the form of inspection report as soon as the audit ended. Financial audit
will result to an opinion. Performance audit will result to finding, conclusion, and
recommendation, meanwhile investigation with specific purpose will result to
conclusion. 14
Opinion is a professional statement of the auditor regarding the qualification of
the financial information stated in the financial statement, which is rated based on the
level of disclosure, conformity with the standard government accounting procedure,
conformity with the related regulations, and effectivity of the internal control
mechanism. There are four types of opinion which can be given by the auditor.15
i. Unqualified opinion (opini wajar tanpa pengecualian)
ii. Qualified opinion (opini wajar dengan pengecualian)
iii. Adverted opinion (opini tidak wajar)
iv. Disclaimer of opinion (pernyataan menolak memberikan opini)
Every inspection report should be handed to House of Representative, Regional
Representative Board, and Regional House of Representative according to each
authority. The inspection report will be followed up with discussion alongside with the
related parties.16
Besides delivered to the representatives, the inspection report is also delivered
to the Government. In terms of the financial audit, the audit of the State Auditory Board
is used by the government to do correction and necessary adjustment, so that the audited
financial statement contains the said corrections before it is handed to the House of
Representative/Regional Representative Board. If the auditor finds a criminal offense,
the Law obligates State Auditory Board to report it to the authorized institution
according to the Laws.17
According to the article 20 of Law no. 15/2004 on Examination of Management
and Responsibilities of State Finances, government officials must follow the
recommendations given by the State Auditory Board and must give explanation about

13
Fadillah Isnan, “Batasan Hukum Kewenangan Pemeriksaan Eksternal Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Terhadap
Badan Usaha Milik Negara Perseroan Terbatas Dalam Perspektif Hukum Keuangan Publik” (Universitas
Indonesia, 2012), 78.
14
Gilang Prama Jasa and Ratna Herawati, “DINAMIKA RELASI ANTARA BADAN PEMERIKSA
KEUANGAN DAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DALAM SISTEM AUDIT KEUANGAN
NEGARA,” LAW REFORM 13, no. 2 (September 28, 2017): 189, https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v13i2.16155.
15
Wibowo, “Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan RI.”
16
Pemerintah Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2004 Tentang Pemeriksaan Pengelolaan Dan
Tanggung Jawab Keuangan Negara, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 4400
(Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, 2004),
https://www.bpk.go.id/assets/files/storage/2013/12/file_storage_1386158654.pdf.
17
Isnan, “Batasan Hukum Kewenangan Pemeriksaan Eksternal Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Terhadap Badan
Usaha Milik Negara Perseroan Terbatas Dalam Perspektif Hukum Keuangan Publik,” 82.
 the follow-up done by the said government official in sixty days after the
recommendation is given.
D. Case Analysis
In March 2018, former auditor for the State Audit Body was sentenced to 6 year
of imprisonment and Rp 250.000.000,00 of fines after proven to accept bribes in the
case of giving unqualified opinion to the Ministry of Villages, Development of Rural
Area and Transmigration (Kemendes PDTT)18. The convicted defendant Ali Sadli
together with Rochmadi Saptogiri who is also a former Auditor were proven to have
received the total of Rp.240.000.000 from the Inspector General of the Kemendes
PDTT Sugito through the Head of Administration and Finance in Kemendes PDTT
namely Jarot Budi Prabowo. Furthermore, the judge found that Ali was guilty of
receiving gratuities of Rp. 8.7 billion19. Rochmadi who was Ali’s superior at that time
was also sentenced to 7 year of imprisonment and Rp.300.000.000 fines.
From this case it can be analyzed that Ali Sadli as the defendant has violated
Law no.15 of 2006 concerning State Auditory Body, precisely article 31 sub-article (3)
letter (b) that stated “To maintain the freedom and independence as intended in
paragraph (1), the State Audit Body and/ or Auditor must oblige the code of ethics”
Juncto Article 7 sub-article (2) letter c and p of the Regulation on the State Auditory
Body No. 3 of 2016 concerning Code of Ethics of the State Auditory Body, letter c
reads “Auditors is prohibited to request and/or receive money, goods, and/or other
facilities, both direct and indirectly from parties related to examination” letter p reads
“Auditors is prohibited to change findings, opinions, conclusions and recommendations
for inspection result which are not in accordance with the facts and/or evidence which
obtained at the time of examination, opinion, conclusion, and recommendation of the
result would not become objective”. First and foremost, as a civil servant, Sadli violated
Article 4 sub-article 8 of the Government Regulation No.58 of 2010, which reads
“Every Civil Servant is prohibited to accept gifts or anything from anyone who is
related to his position and/or work”.
There is also a question about why government institution aims for the
unqualified opinion from the State Auditory Body. According to the ICW, conferment
for unqualified opinion tends to be the start of a corruption cycle. If the financial
statements are deemed proper, then the disbursement of funds from the central
government will be easier.20
According to Prof. Mahfud MD, the opinion of the State Auditory Body has
little to no effect to the government’s administration, as there are some Government
institutions which achieved unqualified opinion but was corrupt.21

18
Yulida Medistiara, (2018) “Terbukti Terima Suap, Eks Auditor BPK Ali Sadli Dihukum 6 Tahun Bui”
Retrieved from: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3900103/terbukti-terima-suap-eks-auditor-bpk-ali-sadli-
dihukum-6-tahun-bui
19
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, No: 11/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PT.DKI
20
Aditya Fajar Indrawan, “ICW: Semakin Baik Opini Dari BPK Akan Mudahkan Pencairan Anggaran,”
detiknews, accessed September 23, 2019, https://news.detik.com/berita/3513201/icw-semakin-baik-opini-dari-
bpk-akan-mudahkan-pencairan-anggaran.
21
“Mahfud MD : Opini WTP Tidak Banyak Gunanya : Okezone Nasional,” accessed September 23, 2019,
https://nasional.okezone.com/read/2019/09/22/337/2107960/mahfud-md-opini-wtp-tidak-banyak-gunanya.
 The same thing was also stated by Sri Mulyani, who stated that there are many
institutions which received unqualified opinions but are corrupt.22
According to Moermahadi Soerja Djanegara, the head of State Auditory Body,
there are four criterias which are used by the State Auditory Body to conduct audit,
which includes accounting standards, adequacy of evidence, internal control
mechanism, and obedience to the law. If four of the criteria is already met, then the said
government institution will receive an unqualified opinion.
Moreover, the State Auditory Body has stated that the four types of opinion
given by the State Auditory Body are based on the properness of the financial statement.
Properness does not mean that the transactions are lawful, but on how well the
transactions are stated. If an auditor finds that there is a procurement deviating from
the law, but it is already recorded in accordance with the standard operating procedure,
then the auditor can give an unqualified opinion.23
The auditors in general use sampling when conducting audit, as it is impossible
to check all transactions, especially in a big institution which has big budgets. As a
consequence of the sampling method, the audit applies what is called as materiality
concept. Auditor will create an equation to determine the minimum amount for a
transaction to be a material transaction. The bigger the fund, the bigger the material
boundary. As an example, sometimes the auditor determine the materiality boundary to
be Rp. 50 Million. Thus, the auditor will focus to take the sample which has bigger
value than Rp. 50 Million. There is a risk that the auditor will not find any deviations
concerning less than Rp. 50 million of value.24
Furthermore, one of the criteria the State Auditory Body uses in order to
determine the type of opinion given is the internal control mechanism embedded in
each institution. The State Auditory Body gives an unqualified opinion if there can’t be
found any weakness regarding the internal control mechanism. However, the internal
control mechanism which has been built by a specific government institution will be
ineffective in controlling deviations if there is a collusion between the parties involved
and the management decides to ignore the deviations.
The unqualified opinion cannot ensure a corruption-free institution because the
opinion is given because the financial statements were following the applicable
standardized accounting process. Although an institution is given an unqualified
opinion, it does not determine a perfection of an institution. There might be weaknesses
and mistakes made by the institution, as an example, the ministry of transportation were
given an unqualified opinion for the budgetary statement in 2016 but the State Auditory
Body found weaknesses in internal control system of the ministry, specifically the
revenue control system. Furthermore, State Auditory Body found disobedience in the

22
Chandra Gian Asmara, “Sri Mulyani: Banyak Yang Dapat WTP Tapi Korupsi,” CNBC Indonesia, accessed
September 23, 2019, https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20180920130426-4-33997/sri-mulyani-banyak-
yang-dapat-wtp-tapi-korupsi.
23
Elza Astari Retaduari, “BPK: Opini WTP Bukan Jaminan Tak Ada Korupsi,” detiknews, accessed September
23, 2019, https://news.detik.com/berita/3513210/bpk-opini-wtp-bukan-jaminan-tak-ada-korupsi.
24
Gunarwanto, “Opini WTP versus Korupsi,” detiknews, accessed September 23, 2019,
https://news.detik.com/kolom/d-4618675/opini-wtp-versus-korupsi.
 management which resulted in a potential of excessive payment of Rp 15,05 billion to
four first echelons for a job that has not been fully paid.25 Moreover, the unqualified
opinion is not an indication of the efficiency for the usage of the resource and the source
of funds hence it is not an indication of integrity of a state institution. The
aforementioned case of ministry of transportation simulates how an unqualified opinion
is not the foremost determination of a corruption-free institution because weaknesses
still might be found and the only matter that is determined by an unqualified opinion of
State Auditory Body is a qualified process of an institution’s financial statements.
State Institutions in Indonesia wish to get the unqualified opinion from the State
Audit Body for the financial statements. Muhammad Misbakhun, a member of XI
Commission of People’s Representatives, said that the reasons for this need are getting
the credibility from the people because the governance are well-performed, conducting
proper procedures, and have satisfactory responsibility and accountability. 26 It can be
explained through the simple logic of having the financial statements that follow the
good process and being proven by an audit body of having no substantial mistakes
hence the public shall think that the institution with an unqualified opinion is credible
and accountable. Although, state institutions wish to get the unqualified opinion for the
trust from the public, but as explained before, securing an unqualified opinion does not
equal to integrity.
From this case analysis, it can be concluded that State Auditory Body which has
a role in external oversight is also vulnerable to maladministration, as shown in the few
cases where the auditor received bribes from other state officials. Furthermore, the
unqualified opinion given by the State Auditory Body does not mean that there is no
corruption, it only shows that the audited institution has stated their financial statements
correctly according to the standardized accounting process.

25
Vindy Florentin, “Kemenhub Terima Opini WTP, BPK Masih Bisa Temukan Kelemahan,” tempo, accessed
on September 23, 2019, https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/878857/kemenhub-terima-opini-wtp-bpk-masih-temukan-
kelemahan
26
Damianus Andreas, “Pentingnya WTP BPK untuk Lembaga Pemerintah”, accessed on 23 September, 2019,
https://tirto.id/pentingnya-wtp-bpk-untuk-lembaga-pemerintah-cpDQ
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andreas, Damianus. “Pentingnya WTP BPK untuk Lembaga Pemerintah”. Accessed on
23 September 2019. https://tirto.id/pentingnya-wtp-bpk-untuk-lembaga-pemerintah-
cpDQ
BPK RI Menunaikan Amanat Konstitusi. Jakarta: Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik
Indonesia, 2009.
Burhanuddin, Nizam. “Hubungan Tugas Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Dengan Dewan
Perwakilan Dalam Pelaksanaan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan Negara.” Universitas
Indonesia, 1997.
Chandra Gian Asmara. “Sri Mulyani: Banyak Yang Dapat WTP Tapi Korupsi.” CNBC
Indonesia. Accessed September 23, 2019.
https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20180920130426-4-33997/sri-mulyani-
banyak-yang-dapat-wtp-tapi-korupsi.
Florentin, Vindy. “Kemenhub Terima Opini WTP, BPK Masih Bisa Temukan
Kelemahan.” Tempo. Accessed on September 23, 2019,
https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/878857/kemenhub-terima-opini-wtp-bpk-masih-
temukan-kelemahan
Gunarwanto. “Opini WTP versus Korupsi.” detiknews. Accessed September 23, 2019.
https://news.detik.com/kolom/d-4618675/opini-wtp-versus-korupsi.
Haq, Ahmad Abdul. “Pemeriksaan Keuangan Negara – Wikiapbn.” Accessed September
22, 2019. https://www.wikiapbn.org/pemeriksaan-keuangan-negara/.

Indrawan, Aditya Fajar. “ICW: Semakin Baik Opini Dari BPK Akan Mudahkan
Pencairan Anggaran.” detiknews. Accessed September 23, 2019.
https://news.detik.com/berita/3513201/icw-semakin-baik-opini-dari-bpk-akan-
mudahkan-pencairan-anggaran.
Isnan, Fadillah. “Batasan Hukum Kewenangan Pemeriksaan Eksternal Badan Pemeriksa
Keuangan Terhadap Badan Usaha Milik Negara Perseroan Terbatas Dalam
Perspektif Hukum Keuangan Publik.” Universitas Indonesia, 2012.
Jasa, Gilang Prama, and Ratna Herawati. “DINAMIKA RELASI ANTARA BADAN
PEMERIKSA KEUANGAN DAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DALAM
 SISTEM AUDIT KEUANGAN NEGARA.” LAW REFORM 13, no. 2 (September
28, 2017): 189. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v13i2.16155.
“Mahfud MD : Opini WTP Tidak Banyak Gunanya : Okezone Nasional.” Accessed
September 23, 2019.
https://nasional.okezone.com/read/2019/09/22/337/2107960/mahfud-md-opini-wtp-
tidak-banyak-gunanya.
“Naskah_Naskah Komprehensif Buku 7.Pdf.” Accessed September 21, 2019.
https://mkri.id/public/content/infoumum/naskahkomprehensif/pdf/naskah_Naskah%
20Komprehensif%20Buku%207.pdf.
Pemerintah Indonesia. Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2004 Tentang Pemeriksaan
Pengelolaan Dan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan Negara. Lembaran Negara Republik
Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 4400. Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, 2004.
https://www.bpk.go.id/assets/files/storage/2013/12/file_storage_1386158654.pdf.
———. Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2006 Tentang Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan.
Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2006 Nomor 4654. Jakarta: Sekretariat
Negara Republik Indonesia, 2006.
http://www.jdih.kemenkeu.go.id/fullText/2006/15TAHUN2006UU.htm.
Redaktur. “Mahfud MD, BPK Perlu Ditanya Soal WTP » Inisiatifnews.Com.” Accessed
September 23, 2019.
https://inisiatifnews.com/news/nasional/2019/09/22/60813/mahfud-md-bpk-perlu-
ditanya-soal-wtp/.
Retaduari, Elza Astari. “BPK: Opini WTP Bukan Jaminan Tak Ada Korupsi.”
detiknews. Accessed September 23, 2019.
https://news.detik.com/berita/3513210/bpk-opini-wtp-bukan-jaminan-tak-ada-
korupsi.
Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia
(BPUPKI) Panitia Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI). III. Sekretariat
Negara Republik Indonesia, 1995.
“S45892-Mokh Luqman Fadlli.Pdf.” Accessed September 21, 2019.
http://lib.ui.ac.id/naskahringkas/2016-03/S45892-Mokh%20Luqman%20Fadlli.
Tim Penyusun Naskah Komprehensif Proses dan Hasil Perubahan UUD 1945.
Keuangan, Perekonomian Nasional, Dan Kesejahteraan Nasional. Naskah
Komprehensif Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun
1945: Latar Belakang, Proses, Dan Hasil Pembahasan, 1992-2002, VII. Jakarta:
Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, n.d.
Undang-undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (1945).
Wibowo, Richo Andi. “Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan RI.” Room IV.2.2 Building 4, n.d.