Questioning the Calculation of State Loss: Is the Supreme Audit Board (BPK) the Only Authority?
Jakarta – The Constitutional Court (MK) decision related to the authority to calculate state losses in corruption cases has become a crucial issue: is the Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) the sole body authorised to calculate state losses?
MK Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 has become one of the triggers for examining revisions to the Corruption Crime Law (UU Tipikor) by the Parliament’s Legislative Body (Baleg) of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR).
According to Professor Pujiyono Suwadi, a senior lecturer at the Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) Law Faculty in Surakarta, reading the Explanation to Article 603 of the Penal Code (KUHP) makes it difficult to interpret the institution referred to as being anything other than the BPK.
“If you read the Explanation to Article 603 of the KUHP, there is, in my view, no interpretation other than that the institution referred to is the BPK, not another body,” he told Kompas.com on Wednesday (20 May 2026).
What is meant by “state financial loss” is based on the results of a financial audit by state auditing bodies.
Pujiyono, who is also the Chair of the Commissioners of the Attorney’s Association, explained that the Explanation to Article 603 uses the phrase “state financial audit institution”. The phrase is not neutral and contains two affirmations.
First, he said, the calculation of state losses can only be performed by a state institution. Second, the state institution in question must have the authority to audit state finances.
“In Indonesia’s constitutional system, such a character is only possessed by the BPK,” he said.
Nevertheless, Pujiyono sees two main problems in implementing the provision, namely normative and technical problems. Normatively, he notes that judicial review related to proving state losses has been tested repeatedly in the Constitutional Court (MK), including through MK Decision No. 31/PUU-X/2012.
“In that decision, in my view, the Constitutional Court asserted that financial losses do not have to be proven solely by the BPK. The MK does not monopolise the proof of state losses by the BPK,” he said.
Pujiyono explained that this consideration arose because if only the BPK is given the authority, enforcement of corruption crimes could be hampered, the legal process could be ineffective, and it could conflict with the principle of due process of law.
“Therefore, BPKP (Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan), APIP (Aparat Pengawasan Internal Pemerintah), as well as other auditors, are still allowed to calculate state losses as evidence as long as it can be tested in court,” he said.
BPK is a body at the level of other high state bodies and is directly accountable to the parliament; its audit type is external audit.
As for BPKP, it is a non-ministerial government agency reporting to the president; its audit type is internal audit.