Constitutional Court: The State Institution Authorised to Audit State Losses is the BPK

The Constitutional Court (MK) has stated that the Financial Audit Board (BPK) is the state institution authorised to audit state losses.

This view is contained in the ruling on case number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, decided on Monday, 9 February 2026. The decision was made by nine constitutional justices: 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 are two students named Bernita Matondang and Vendy Setiawan, who challenged the material in Article 603 and Article 604 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

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

The MK states that the concept of state losses adopted by Indonesia is the concept of state losses in the sense of a material offence, meaning an act can be said to harm the state finances provided there is a real or actual state loss.

In other words, the state loss must be calculable in amount based on findings from the relevant agency or institution.

According to the MK, this concept aligns with the Explanation of Article 603 of Law No. 1/2023 (KUHP Law), which defines “harming state finances” as based on the results of an examination by a state financial audit institution.

“Therefore, by referring to the Explanation of Article 603 of Law No. 1/2023, the state institution authorised to audit state finances as meant is the Financial Audit Board (BPK) as mandated in Article 23E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states, ‘To examine the management and responsibility of state finances, an independent and autonomous Financial Audit Board shall be established,’” reads the MK’s consideration quoted on Sunday (5/4).

Furthermore, the MK adds that under Article 10 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the BPK, the BPK also has the authority to assess and/or determine the amount of state losses resulting from unlawful acts.

The BPK’s authority to declare and determine the amount of state losses is related to the law enforcement process for actions or conduct that cause state losses.

“Regarding the occurrence of state financial losses or state economic losses in the norms of Article 603 and Article 604 of Law No. 1/2023 as an implication of unlawful acts and abuse of authority that benefits oneself or others or a corporation as considered by the Court in Constitutional Court Decision No. 142/PUU-XXII/2024, related to the normative provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Law,” states the MK.

“The petitioners’ argument regarding the absence of clear normative parameters on who is authorised to determine losses, how the assessment standards are, and to what extent the audit results bind the judge in the proof process in the phrase ‘harming state finances’ in the norms of Article 603 and Article 604 of Law No. 1/2023, thus placing the offence element in an immeasurable and unpredictable interpretive space, is legally unfounded,” emphasises the MK.

The petition by the two students was rejected in its entirety by the MK.

“Rejecting the petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said MK Chair Suhartoyo.

In their petition, Bernita and Vendy stated there is a lack of clarity in Article 603 of the KUHP regarding the state financial audit institution, the examination mechanism, and the standards for assessing state financial losses.

The petitioners requested that the MK declare the phrase ‘state financial losses’ in Article 603 and Article 604 of the KUHP Law to be contrary to the Constitution and have no binding legal force.

The petitioners also requested that state losses be determined based on valid evidence and assessed by the judge in the criminal trial process.

“As long as it is not interpreted that proving state financial losses is exclusive and closed only to the results of examinations by a particular audit institution, but must be proven based on valid legal evidence and assessed independently by the judge in the criminal trial process,” reads the petitioners’ petitum.