Jampidsus Circular Note Deemed to Violate MK Ruling, Expert: Calculating State Losses is the Sole Authority of BPK
Constitutional Law expert from the Muslim University of Indonesia (UMI), Fahri Bachmid, has responded to Circular Note (SE) Jampidsuit Nomor B-1391/F/Fjp/04/2026, which has triggered new controversy regarding the handling of corruption cases in Indonesia. The circular, signed by the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah, is viewed as undermining law enforcement commitments by allowing institutions other than the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) to calculate state losses.
This circular is under scrutiny because the Constitutional Court (MK), in Ruling Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 delivered on 9 February 2026, explicitly reaffirmed that the BPK is the sole institution with such constitutional authority. Fahri considers the Attorney General’s Office’s decision to issue this circular to be flawed in terms of authority and lacking legally binding power.
“The SE issued by Jampidsus is more of an unauthorised and non-authoritative opinion. Institutionally, the Prosecutor’s Office is a party with an interest in the case, and legally, there is no authority to create a constitutional interpretation as desired,” Fahri stated on Monday (18/5/2026).
Fahri emphasised that every Constitutional Court ruling is final, binding (binding precedent), and applies to all parties (erga omnes). Therefore, no law enforcement institution should ignore such rules by creating opposing interpretations. He also refuted the Attorney General’s argument, which allegedly relies on an older regulation, MK Ruling Number 31/PUU-X/2012. Based on the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori, the older ruling is automatically superseded because the MK has updated its legal stance through the latest ruling in February 2026.
“The MK adopts the living constitution doctrine, where the 1945 Constitution is not a dead document. The MK’s interpretation evolves with the times and the sense of justice. Through Ruling Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, the MK made the interpretation clear. There is no longer any room for new, subjective, and thematic interpretations to be created by government agencies,” Fahri explained.
Philosophically, the mandate for the BPK as the sole institution for auditing state losses is part of the institution’s raison d’être, guaranteed by Articles 23E, 23F, and 23G of the 1945 Constitution. These norms affirm the BPK’s position as an independent and free institution in managing and auditing state finances.
Fahri reminded the Attorney General’s Office to respect the legal principle that every legal dispute or debate must have an end. According to him, the Jampidsus’s action in issuing the circular, which contradicts the MK ruling, is an unlawful step.
“No institution should use the method of argumentum a contrario—legal reasoning that draws conclusions contrary to an MK ruling. MK rulings must be strictly obeyed,” he concluded.