Constitutional Law Expert Stresses State Loss Audit Must Go Through Constitutional Bodies
A pre-trial case filed by former Lampung Governor Arinal Djunaidi against the Lampung High Prosecution Office (Kejati Lampung) at Tanjung Karang District Court has entered a critical phase. The plaintiff’s side called upon Fahri Bachmid, a Constitutional and State Law expert from Muslim University of Indonesia (UMI), as an expert witness.
Fahri’s testimony aims to provide constitutional perspectives on the limits of state authority, the validity of evidence, and the mandatory role of state loss audits in determining corruption suspect status.
Before presiding judge Agus Windana, Fahri stated that criminal procedural law is applied constitutional law. Therefore, all law enforcement actions must adhere to due process and the principle of fair legal certainty.
“In a democratic rule of law, state powers must not be exercised arbitrarily. All legal actions must be based on objective reasoning and legitimate procedures,” Fahri stated in his testimony on Sunday (22 May 2026).
Fahri explained the status of State Loss Audit Reports (LHA) following the enactment of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (New KUHP). He stated that state loss audits now constitute a constitutive element of the crime of corruption.
He referenced the Explanatory Note of Article 603 of the New KUHP, which explicitly states that the phrase ‘causing state financial loss’ must be based on audits conducted by state audit institutions. The absence of an official audit automatically invalidates the material requirement for suspect designation.
“The concept of state loss in criminal law cannot be built on hypothetical assumptions or internal administrative approaches alone. It must be linked to audit mechanisms with constitutional legitimacy,” Fahri explained in court.
This view, according to Fahri, is reinforced by Constitutional Court Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, which underscores the necessity of using final and binding constitutional audit mechanisms for all law enforcement agencies and executive institutions.
Furthermore, Fahri detailed the fundamental constitutional differences between the State Audit Institution (BPK) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP). Under Article 23E of the 1945 Constitution, BPK is the sole state institution with direct constitutional mandate to conduct independent financial audits.
Meanwhile, BPKP is essentially a Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) operating under the executive branch for administrative oversight.
Fahri stated that in the hierarchy of legal norms, administrative authority cannot equate to or negate constitutional authority. In cases of conflicting evidence, the constitutional interpretations from BPK and the Constitutional Court must be followed.
“If evidence is derived from an institution lacking absolute authority, it is legally invalid (van rechtswege nietig) and must be disregarded,” Fahri elaborated.
Furthermore, Fahri reminded that pre-trial proceedings serve as a constitutional oversight mechanism for law enforcement. Investigations must not only focus on administrative-procedural aspects but also assess the substance of human rights.
“State power must always be under constitutional control (rule of law, not rule of man). The effectiveness of law enforcement cannot be built at the expense of constitutional principles (truth cannot be pursued at any cost),” he concluded.