Markus Junianto Sihaloho, Jakarta – Two years after the Freedom of Information Law was passed, the vast majority of state institutions have still not complied by making their budget implementation documents available to the public, a study has found.
The study, carried out by the Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (Fitra), USAID and the Partnership for Governance Reform (Kemitraan), sought to obtain the budget implementation documents (DIPA) of 69 ministries and other government bodies.
However, the list was truncated to only 28 after the Finance Ministry and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) ordered the researchers to withdraw their requests to various institutions.
Maulana, a Fitra researcher, said on Wednesday that of the 28 institutions queried, only 13 made their DIPA available. These included the State Secretariat and the trade, agriculture and transportation ministries. Even then, Maulana said, the published documents tended not to be complete.
She said the DIPA from the State Secretariat was missing two pages, which provided details of the procurement of cars for state officials.
Among law enforcement agencies, only the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) made its DIPA available, while the Supreme Court, the National Police and the Attorney General's Office all denied the researchers' request.
Among legislative bodies, only the Regional Representative Council (DPD) complied, while the House of Representatives and the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) did not respond to the request, Maulana said.
"We conclude that for almost all government institutions, making the DIPA public is still a nightmare prospect, even though it's required by the law," he said.
However, the most surprising development was that the two institutions widely credited for championing budget transparency had called for the study to be cut short, he said. "The Finance Ministry and the BPK are supposed to be role models for budget transparency," Maulana said.
Ahmad Alamsyah Saragih, chairman of the National Information Commission, which monitors state institutions' compliance with the Freedom of Information Law, said there was no reason for officials to withhold the DIPA of any public institution.
"The offending officials can be sued for denying access to such information, because there's no regulation forbidding the DIPA from being published," he said.
However, he said his commission had discussed with the president the issue of officials withholding data, and had agreed it would be better to mount an education campaign rather than punish the officials in question.
Eva Kusuma Sundari, a legislator with the House Financial Accountability Body, said it was understandable that some institutions were wary of publishing their DIPA, because the data could be used to rig procurement projects.
She added that even among officials, there was a reluctance to share sensitive information. However, she agreed there should be greater budget transparency, in line with the law, with the Finance Ministry setting the example for other institutions.
She said the ministry was the recipient of a World Bank fund to improve access to state budget documents and make them available from the Finance Ministry's Web site.
"I spoke with Sri Mulyani [Indrawati], the finance minister at the time, about the matter, and she assured me she would implement [the Web site] in the near future," Eva said. "If, however, there's no such implementation, I'll support Fitra if it chooses to sue the ministry for violating the Freedom of Information Law."