Expert: Absence of state loss audit can void suspect status in corruption cases
Constitutional law expert Fahri Bachmid from the University of Muslim Indonesia (UMI) stated that the absence of a state loss audit report from a competent government agency automatically invalidates the material requirements for suspect status in a corruption case.
“Under positive law, the audit report (LHA) constitutes an essential element or absolute constituent part of the corruption offence,” Fahri said in a statement on Monday.
He referred to Article 603 of the National Criminal Code (KUHP), which states: “‘Causing loss to state finances’ is defined based on the findings of a government audit institution.”
According to him, this provision establishes a normative framework where state financial loss cannot be determined solely through assumptions or internal administrative approaches, but must be tied to an audit mechanism with constitutional legitimacy within Indonesia’s state system.
This perspective gains constitutional relevance when linked to the Constitutional Court’s (MK) ruling, specifically Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, which underscores the importance of using constitutionally legitimate audit mechanisms.
Fahri also presented this view as an expert witness in the pre-trial hearing for former Lampung Governor Arinal Djunaidi at the Tanjung Karang District Court in Bandar Lampung on Friday, 22 May.
Arinal was named a suspect in a corruption case involving the management of $17.29 million in 10% Participating Interest (PI) funds from the Offshore South East Sumatra (WK OSES) work area.
On another point, Fahri explained that under Article 23E of the 1945 Constitution, the State Audit Institution (BPK) is a government body explicitly granted constitutional authority to independently audit state financial management and accountability.
In constitutional law terms, he noted the fundamental distinction between BPK and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP).
According to legal theory, evidence derived from an agency lacking absolute authority is automatically invalid under law (van rechtswege nietig) and must be disregarded.
He clarified that this stance does not negate BPKP’s administrative functions in government oversight.
However, Fahri added, within the hierarchy of norms (stufenbaulehre) and constitutional supremacy, administrative authority cannot be equated with constitutional authority explicitly granted by the 1945 Constitution.
“If there is a discrepancy or conflict between administrative approaches and constitutional constructions regarding state financial loss as defined in the 1945 Constitution or Constitutional Court rulings, the constitutional norms and the MK’s final constitutional interpretation must be followed,” he concluded.