KPK Responds to Constitutional Court Ruling on BPK's Authority to Audit State Financial Losses

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) will make adjustments in response to the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling stating that the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) is the state institution authorised to conduct audits of state financial losses. These adjustments are necessary because KPK has previously used internal forensic accounting to calculate state financial losses. This unit has calculated financial losses to the state in corruption cases involving Business Cooperation Agreements (KSU) and the acquisition of PT Jembatan Nusantara (PT JN) by PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry from 2019 to 2022. “KPK, through its Legal Bureau, will certainly study the MK ruling, particularly for handling future cases related to alleged state financial losses or Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code, or previously under the Corruption Law in Articles 2 and 3,” said KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo at the office in Jakarta on Monday (6/4). Budi stated that KPK will also examine the impact of the MK ruling on the internal anti-corruption agency’s forensic accounting, which previously had the authority to calculate state financial losses in corruption cases. “Whether with this ruling, it can still be done and has the authority to calculate state financial losses or not,” said Budi. “Of course, KPK will continue to coordinate intensively with BPK because previously KPK has been greatly assisted by BPK in calculating state financial losses in several investigations, in addition to being assisted by BPKP (Financial and Development Supervisory Agency),” he added. Previously, the MK stated that BPK is the state institution authorised to conduct audits of state financial losses. This view is contained in the ruling of case number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, decided on Monday, 9 February 2026. This ruling was made by nine constitutional judges: Suhartoyo as chair and member, Saldi Isra, Daniel Yusmic P Foekh, M. Guntur Hamzah, Anwar Usman, Enny Nurbaningsih, Ridwan Mansyur, Arsul Sani, and Adies Kadir, each as members. The petitioners in the case were two students named Bernita Matondang and Vendy Setiawan, who challenged the material of Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code. Petitioner I is a third-party vendor, while Petitioner II is a law student.