Expert: Every Pro Justisia Action Must Have Constitutional Legitimacy

Constitutional law expert Fahri Bachmid appeared in a pre-trial hearing (Register Number: 8/PID.PRA/2026/PN TJK) at Tanjung Karang District Court, brought by former Lampung Governor Arinal Djunaidi.

Bachmid appeared as an expert to strengthen the arguments and claims of Djunaidi’s pre-trial petition. His appearance addressed the constitutional perspective on the limits of state authority, constitutional supremacy, the validity of evidence use, and the role of state financial loss audits in the process of designating criminal suspects in corruption cases.

Bachmid stressed that criminal procedure law is essentially applied constitutional law, or concretised constitutional law. Therefore, all criminal law enforcement actions, including suspect designation and the use of coercive measures, must comply with the principles of due process of law, fair legal certainty, and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights as guaranteed by Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution.

In a democratic rule-of-law state, Bachmid explained, the exercise of state authority must not be arbitrary. “Every pro justisia action must have constitutional legitimacy, be conducted according to lawful procedures, by authorised authorities, and be based on objective legal grounds that can be held accountable,” he stated.

During the hearing, Bachmid discussed the role of state financial loss audits in the structure of corruption offences, particularly following the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the New Criminal Code (KUHP Baru). Under positive law, audit reports (LHA) hold the status of an absolute constitutive element in corruption offences.

Bachmid referred to the explanation of Article 603 of the KUHP Baru, which states: “What is meant by ‘causing loss to state finances’ is based on the examination results of the state financial audit body.”

According to Bachmid, this provision establishes a normative construction whereby the existence of state financial losses cannot be built solely on assumptions or internal administrative approaches, but must be linked to audit mechanisms that possess constitutional legitimacy within Indonesia’s constitutional system. The absence of audit results from an authorised state body automatically invalidates the satisfaction of material requirements for suspect designation.