Experts Highlight Constitutional and Methodological Issues in BPKP Audit

The polemic surrounding the calculation of state losses by the Development Finance Comptroller (BPKP) in corruption cases has come to public attention. Beyond the constitutional issue following a Constitutional Court (MK) ruling, the methodology used by the BPKP has also been criticised for lacking consistent standards and often changing.

This conclusion emerged from an interview with constitutional law expert Fahri Bachmid and University of Indonesia economist Vid Adrison in Jakarta on Friday. They warned that if left unaddressed, this situation could potentially lead to legal uncertainty.

Fahri Bachmid assessed that MK Ruling Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 has provided constitutional clarity regarding the institution authorised to determine state financial losses. He noted that the ruling is final and binding for all state institutions. Therefore, he argued, there should be no room for differing interpretations that allow other institutions to determine state losses outside the constitutional provisions. “The MK ruling is a juridical parameter that must be obeyed. There should be no new interpretations that contradict this ruling,” he stated.

According to Fahri, the current issue is not only about compliance with the MK ruling but also the potential for constitutional defiance if law enforcement officials maintain a different interpretation. He cautioned that the use of audit results from institutions other than the BPK post-ruling could be challenged again in judicial processes. Fahri believes the MK ruling is a momentum to overhaul the entire corruption eradication legal system.

Meanwhile, Vid Adrison highlighted that the BPKP’s methodology lacks consistent standards, resulting in different loss figures for cases with similar characteristics. This discrepancy, he said, demonstrates the absence of an objectively testable methodology. “I see a methodological problem. In several cases, the calculation results differ from the BPK’s findings. This indicates a fundamental difference in approach,” he said.

Vid cited the alleged corruption case in the procurement of Chromebooks at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology during Minister Nadiem Makarim’s tenure. In that case, the BPK’s audit reportedly found no issues, unlike the BPKP’s subsequent calculation. Similar discrepancies also emerged in the sugar import case involving former Trade Minister Thomas Lembong.

Vid urged the development of a transparent, measurable, and uniform methodology for calculating state losses so that audit results are not dependent on individual auditors’ assumptions. He stressed that state financial losses should be actual, real, and definite, not based on estimated potential gains the state might have obtained. “If state losses are based on potential, the result will depend entirely on whose assumption is used. That is dangerous because there is no certainty,” he said. He warned that using a potential loss approach could blur the lines between administrative errors, policy choices, and criminal acts of corruption.

This polemic is not limited to the Chromebook and sugar import cases. In the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of COVID-19 personal protective equipment at the Ministry of Health, which implicated former ministry official Budi Sylvana, PT Energi Kita Indonesia President Director Satrio Wibowo, and PT Permana Putra Mandiri President Director Ahmad Taufik, prosecutors based their charges on a BPKP audit stating state losses of approximately Rp319.69 billion. There are allegations that the audit process was not conducted according to proper methodology, for instance, failing to consider the scarcity of PPE raw materials at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The audit reportedly did not review that the procurement activity occurred during a declared national and global disaster emergency. Taufik has since been sentenced to 14 years in prison by the Jakarta High Court, while Satrio Wibowo received an 11-year and 6-month sentence.

Both Fahri and Vid believe the situation demonstrates the need for comprehensive reform. Fahri emphasised the importance of legislative follow-up to the MK ruling to prevent overlapping authority in handling corruption cases. For justice seekers already processed under BPKP audit results, Fahri suggested they could pursue further legal remedies based on the MK ruling. “The MK ruling can be used as a basis for further legal action. I think the MK ruling can serve as a new guideline for judges,” he said. Regarding corruption cases already decided using BPKP’s loss calculations, Fahri urged judges and law enforcement to apply the principle of lex favor reo or lex mitior, which requires using the legal provision most favourable to the defendant. Without addressing these two aspects, the polemic over state loss calculations is expected to recur, affecting not only the validity of evidence but also the credibility of the criminal justice system in ensuring legal certainty, justice, and public trust in corruption eradication.