IAW Will Add Use of DC Papua Provincial Government to Kejagung with 8 Proofs

JAKARTA - Indonesian Audit Watch (IAW) stated that it would immediately file a formal complaint to the Attorney General's Office regarding the use of the Papua Provincial Government Reserve Fund (DC) of Rp. 44 billion to finance the Re-Counting of Votes (PSU).

The Founding Secretary of IAW, Iskandar Sitorus, in his statement, Monday, April 20, 2026, confirmed that his party would not make a public judgment. However, the facts obtained from official documents are considered strong enough to be brought to the legal realm.

"We are not saying this is corruption. But we say this is strange, this is strange, and this needs to be tested by law enforcement. The public has a right to know, whether this policy violates the law or not? Because the risk is Rp44 billion of public money," said Iskandar.

He also emphasized that he would make a complaint that would be addressed to the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) to encourage an investigation into policies that were considered to deviate from the provisions of the Regional Regulation (Perda).

Furthermore, Iskandar said that one of the most disturbing findings quoted by IAW was sourced from the Minutes of the Papua House of Representatives Budget Committee (Banggar) Meeting dated May 2, 2025. In the minutes on pages 2-3, the Deputy Chairman of the I DPRP explicitly mentioned the existence of the 2024 APBD Budget Calculation Surplus (SiLPA) of Rp. 289 billion, which he called "unclaimed" money and became "what we are after."

"If the SiLPA worth Rp. 289 billion is available and can be used according to procedures, why do the Papua Provincial Government and the DPRP still insist on using the Reserve Fund whose allocation has been strictly regulated in the Regulation?" asked Iskandar.

He explained, the Regional Regulation of the Province of Papua Number 1 of 2010 jo. Regulation Number 5 of 2014 clearly states that the Reserve Fund can only be used for four needs, namely education, health, social culture, and economic empowerment of the community, especially the Papuan Indigenous People (OAP).

"While the funding for the PSU is not included in the provisions," he said.

In fact, continued Iskandar, Article 6 paragraph (3) of Regulation 5/2014 stipulates that the Reserve Fund cannot be used to finance other programs and activities outside of those that have been determined.

"We highlight this as a violation of the most fundamental principle of legality. Shifting the term, calling it an 'economic cluster' as written in the minutes, does not change the essence. In the end, the money was used for the PSU," he explained.

He also said that another finding that was considered sensitive was the existence of the concept of the principle of permission of the leadership. In the minutes on page 3, it was recorded that the actual funds could be disbursed using the principle of permission of the leadership without asking for Banggar's approval.

"We question whether the principle permit was really given, who are the leaders and faction leaders involved, and whether the permit became the basis for the executive to disburse funds. The council leaders who gave permission for policies that potentially violated the Regional Regulation must provide public clarification," said Iskandar.

Based on these facts, IAW highlights three areas of accountability that must be faced by the Governor of Papua, the Head of the DPRP, and the Faction Chairmen.

"First, the moral realm, namely answering honestly in front of the public how appropriate it is for the money promised for OAP children's scholarships and the treatment of residents to be diverted to pay for PSU logistics," said Iskandar.

Second, the political realm, where the faction leaders who give the principle of permission are considered to need to be reminded by their respective political parties, including the possibility of recall sanctions if the policy is contrary to the party's platform.

Third, the legal realm, namely testing whether this joint action between the executive and legislative branches meets the elements of Article 2 or 3 of the Corruption Criminal Act (TIPIKOR) related to state financial losses and abuse of authority, as well as Article 55 of the Criminal Code regarding participation.

"We will send a letter of public complaint (Dumas) complete with eight pieces of evidence, including the minutes and legal opinion. We ask the Attorney General's Office to investigate. If sufficient evidence is found, raise it to an investigation. Let the legal process prove, whether this is a mere procedural error or there is a criminal element in it," concluded Iskandar Sitorus.