Attorney General's Office Sticks with BPKP for State Financial Loss Audits, Not BPK

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) will continue to use calculations from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) to determine state financial losses.

This was stated by the Director of Investigations of the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes, Syarief Sulaeman Nahdi, in response to the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) is the state institution authorised to conduct audits of state financial losses.

Syarief argued that the AGO has its own studies regarding the use of BPKP calculations as the basis for state financial losses in corruption cases.

“Regarding the MK’s ruling, we will address it separately. We have our own studies, so for now, we are still using BPKP to calculate state financial losses,” he told reporters on Friday (10/4).

He added that cooperation with BPKP is also ongoing for the latest case being handled, namely the alleged corruption in the procurement of crude oil by Pertamina Energy Trading Limited (Petral) for the period 2008-2015.

“For the amount of state financial losses, we are currently calculating it together with our colleagues at BPKP,” he explained.

He described that in this case, PT Pertamina suffered losses because it had to pay higher costs for fuel procurement than it should have.

“We will announce the amount of state financial losses or those claimed on behalf of PT Pertamina. It will be announced; the calculation process is ongoing. We are not yet ready to provide the figure, but it is being calculated,” he stated.

Previously, the MK stated that BPK is the state institution authorised to conduct audits of state financial losses.

This view is contained in the decision of case number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, decided on Monday, 9 February 2026.

This decision was made by nine constitutional judges: Suhartoyo as chair and member, Saldi Isra, Daniel Yusmic P Foekh, M Guntur Hamzah, Anwar Usman, Enny Nurbaningsih, Ridwan Mansyur, Arsul Sani, and Adies Kadir, each as members.

The petitioners in the case were two students named Bernita Matondang and Vendy Setiawan, who challenged the material of Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

Petitioner I is a third-party vendor, while Petitioner II is a law student.