DPR and Government Assert BPK's Authority to Determine State Losses in Constitutional Court Hearing
In a judicial review hearing at the Constitutional Court concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP), the Indonesian Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) have both emphasised that the constitutional authority to declare state losses rests solely with the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK).
The hearing was part of the agenda to hear testimonies regarding the interpretation of the Explanation of Article 603 of the Criminal Code. The provision contains a phrase stating that ‘harming state finances’ must be based on the audit results of a state financial auditing institution.
Speaking on behalf of the DPR, Commission III member Rudianto Lallo stated that the explanation of this article serves as the official interpretation of the elements of state loss, which has frequently been a subject of debate in corruption trials. He clarified that the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) is not a state institution but a non-ministerial government agency under the direct responsibility of the President.
According to the DPR, BPKP’s position as part of the executive branch means it only performs internal oversight functions. This differs from the BPK, which possesses the constitutional authority under Article 23E of the 1945 Constitution to conduct external audits of state finances. However, the DPR noted that law enforcement agencies can still coordinate with other agencies, such as the BPKP, to assist in the evidentiary process of corruption cases, as supported by previous Constitutional Court rulings.
Representing the government, Deputy Minister of Law Edward OS Hiariej also affirmed that the BPK’s authority is a constitutional mandate. However, he emphasised that a state loss audit is not the sole instrument of proof in corruption cases, as law enforcement can still utilise experts and other supervisory bodies to establish criminal acts.
The Constitutional Court Chair, Suhartoyo, announced that the court will summon several parties, including the BPK, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office, the National Police, and the Supreme Court, for a follow-up hearing scheduled for late May 2026. The legal challenge, filed by Naslindo Sirait and Yeasy Darmayanti, seeks to ensure that the term ‘state financial auditing institution’ is explicitly understood to mean the BPK to prevent legal ambiguity.