Expert: Constitutional Court ruling on BPK's audit powers applies to all
Jakarta — Fahri Bachmid, a constitutional law expert from Universitas Muslim Indonesia, has stressed that the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the authority to audit state losses, which may only be conducted by the Audit Board (BPK), has erga omnes force, i.e., applies to everyone. This is because the decision in case number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 is binding with erga omnes force in scientific terms and within the MK doctrine as the sole interpreter of the Constitution, possessing the highest constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and to test laws against it.
“The Constitutional Court’s decision is final, binding, and serves as the absolute juridical and normative reference within the framework of constitutional law and the relationships among state institutions,” Fahri said in a statement received in Jakarta on Tuesday.
Thus, legally, he says that Decision MK No. 31/PUU-X/2012 has been superseded by subsequent MK decisions, so doctrinally lex posterior derogat legi priori applies, the principle that newer laws or regulations override older ones.
Therefore, Fahri asserts that the Attorney General’s Office’s Circular Letter No. B-1391/F/Fjp/04/2026 on the interpretation of Constitutional Court No 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 is not a legal product or a mandatory rule or based on attributie van bestuursbevoegdheid (attribution of governmental authority) under law. This is stated as per Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Perundang-Undangan.
The SE signed by Jampidsus on 20 April 2026 is still seen as leaving room for institutions other than the BPK to calculate state losses.
Accordingly, in determining which MK decision applies and which does not apply, the Attorney General’s Office, as an institutional party with an interest, has no legal authority to interpret constitutionally as desired.
He stressed that the context of MK Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, announced on 9 February 2026, emphasises that the BPK is the sole body authorised to articulate and determine the amount of state financial losses.
“The MK provides this constitutional interpretation and clarifies normative aspects of the various interpretations among law enforcement regarding the authority to calculate state losses so that there is no room for further interpretations that could be made subjectively,” he said.
If the legal segment surrounding the issue is not clear as the constitutional endeavour of the MK’s decision, Fahri said, it would amount to turning a legal debate into an endless multi-interpretation about which body is constitutionally empowered to perform the calculation of state losses.
Fahri emphasised that the MK plays a vital role in upholding the principle that every case should reach a conclusion. No institution should interpret legally using the method of argumentum a contrario, that is, reasoning or interpretation by drawing conclusions contrary to the MK’s decision,” Fahri said.