TY  - THES
ID  - eprints29431
UR  - http://digilib.unila.ac.id/29431/
A1  - MUHAMMAD FADEL NOERMAN, 1522011037
Y1  - 2017/12/13/
N2  - namanya penggunaan anggaran, tentunya dalam penggunaan anggaran tersebut
diperlukan suatu control untuk menghindari pemborosan serta penyalahgunaan
dalam penggunaan anggaran. Terdapat dua lembaga pengawasan yang berwenang
melakukan control terhadap penyelenggaraan pemerintahan, yaitu ada pengawasa
intern dan pengawas ektern, pengawas internal merupakan Aparat Pengawas
Internal Pemerintah yang terdiri dari Badan Pengawas Keuangan dan
Pembangunan, Inspektorat Jenderal, Inspektorat wilayah Provinsi dan Inspektorat
Wilayah Kabupaten/Kota, sedangkan pengawas ekternal terdiri dari Badan
Pemeriksa Keuangan dan juga ada DPR/DPRD.
Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini, bagaimana pelaksanaan pengawasan APIP dan
BPK dalam pemeriksaan dengan tujuan tertentu dalam akuntabilitas keuangan
daerah, dan bagaimana hubungan hasil pengawasan APIP dan BPK dalam
pemeriksaan dengan tujuan tertentu. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini
adalah pendekatan secara yuridis normatif dan empiris.
Dari hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pelaksanaan audit yang dilakukan APIP
dan BPK dilaksanakan berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan, dimana
pemeriksaan yang dilakukan yaitu pemeriksaan keuangan, pemeriksaan kinerja
dan pemeriksaan dengan tujuan tertentu.
Audit dilakukan dengan bentuk pemeriksaan secara langsung dan tidak langsung,
yang waktu pelaksanaannya pada awal tahun, pertengahan tahun dan pada akhir
tahun. Sebelum melakukan pemeriksaan terlebih dahulu auditor melakukan
pemilihan sample objek yang akan diperiksa. Setelah auditor selesai melakukan
pemeriksaan maka auditor membuat laporan hasil pemeriksaan yang nantinya
diserahkan kepada kepala pemerintahan dan DPR/D.
Audit dengan tujuan tertentu dilakukan oleh auditor ketika adanya temuan yang
terindikasi terjadinya penyalahgunaan anggara, auditor juga dapat melakukan
investigasi apabila ada suatu laporan dari masyarakat atau Lembaga masyarakat,
pelaksanaan audit dengan tujuan tertentu juga dapat dilakukan apabila ada
permintaan dari kepala instansi atau kepala daerah selaku pejabat pembina
kepegawaian, untuk meminta lembaga pengawas baik internal maupun ekternal
melakukan audit, permintaan audit dilakukan secara tertulis oleh kepala instansi
atau kepala daerah. Selain itu pelaksanaan audit juga dapat dilakukan apabila ada
permintaan dari Aparat Penegak hukum untuk dijadikan bukti dalam suatu kasus
korupsi.
Nantinya laporan hasil auditor intern diserahkan juga kepada BPK untuk nantinya
digunakan oleh BPK dalam proses pemeriksaan bila diperlukan oleh BPK. Dari
hasil pemeriksaan auditor memberikan opini atau rekomendasi yang nantinya
dapat dijadikan masukan oleh pemerintah dalam menjalankan roda pemerintahan
untuk mengeluarkan kebijakan yang tepat.
Kata Kunci : Hubungan, Pengawasan, APIP, BPK, Akuntabilitas


ABSTRACT


The exercise of government administration cannot be separated from budget
using, and certainly budget should be controlled to prevent waste and abuse from
the budget usage. There are two authorized monitoring institutions to control
government administration exercises; they are internal and external monitoring.
Internal monitoring is the government internal monitoring apparatus including
Finance and Development Audit Board, General Inspectorate, District/Municipal
and Provincial Inspectorates; while external monitoring contains of Audit Board
(BPK) and House of Representative/Regional House of Representative.
The problems of this research were how did the exercise of APIP and Audit Board
(BPK) monitoring in the regional finance accountability, and how did the
correlation of APIP and BPK monitoring results to the audit with special
purposes. This research used normative and empirical jurisdiction approaches.
The research results showed that the audit by APIP and BPK was conducted based
on legislative regulations, where the audit included financial audit, performance
audit, and audit with special purposes.
Audit was exercised directly and indirectly in the early, mid, and end of year.
Before the audit was exercised, auditors selected object samples to audit. After
auditors conducted the audits, they made reports to handover to government
leaders and House of Representative/Regional House of Representative.
Audit with special purposes was conducted by auditors when there were findings
indicating budget abuse. Auditors could also make audit based on reports from
public or non-government organizations. The audit with special purposes could
also be conducted upon the requests of the head of a government institution or
regional head as the elder member officials for civil servant affairs to both internal
and external auditors by written requests. This audit could also be conducted upon
request from law enforcers for evidences in corruption crime cases.
The internal auditor reports were handover to Audit Board (BPK) to use by BPK
in the BPK audit process if required. From the audit results, auditors provided
opinions or recommendations for government for proper policy makings.
Keywords : correlation, monitoring, APIP, Audit Board (BPK),
accountability.The exercise of government administration cannot be separated from budget
using, and certainly budget should be controlled to prevent waste and abuse from
the budget usage. There are two authorized monitoring institutions to control
government administration exercises; they are internal and external monitoring.
Internal monitoring is the government internal monitoring apparatus including
Finance and Development Audit Board, General Inspectorate, District/Municipal
and Provincial Inspectorates; while external monitoring contains of Audit Board
(BPK) and House of Representative/Regional House of Representative.
The problems of this research were how did the exercise of APIP and Audit Board
(BPK) monitoring in the regional finance accountability, and how did the
correlation of APIP and BPK monitoring results to the audit with special
purposes. This research used normative and empirical jurisdiction approaches.
The research results showed that the audit by APIP and BPK was conducted based
on legislative regulations, where the audit included financial audit, performance
audit, and audit with special purposes.
Audit was exercised directly and indirectly in the early, mid, and end of year.
Before the audit was exercised, auditors selected object samples to audit. After
auditors conducted the audits, they made reports to handover to government
leaders and House of Representative/Regional House of Representative.
Audit with special purposes was conducted by auditors when there were findings
indicating budget abuse. Auditors could also make audit based on reports from
public or non-government organizations. The audit with special purposes could
also be conducted upon the requests of the head of a government institution or
regional head as the elder member officials for civil servant affairs to both internal
and external auditors by written requests. This audit could also be conducted upon
request from law enforcers for evidences in corruption crime cases.
The internal auditor reports were handover to Audit Board (BPK) to use by BPK
in the BPK audit process if required. From the audit results, auditors provided
opinions or recommendations for government for proper policy makings.
Keywords : correlation, monitoring, APIP, Audit Board (BPK),
accountability.
PB  - UNIVERSITAS LAMPUNG
M1  - masters
TI  - HUBUNGAN HASIL PENGAWASAN APIP DAN BPK DALAM
RANGKA AUDIT DENGAN TUJUAN TERTENTU DALAM
AKUNTABILITAS KEUANGAN DAERAH
AV  - restricted
ER  -