PRIME NEWS POST
The INDONESIAN (Jakarta)— The Constitutional Court (MK) Ruling Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, read out on February 9, 2026, marks a significant milestone in the history of law enforcement in Indonesia. In this decision, the Constitutional Court explicitly stipulates that only the Supreme Audit Board (BPK) possesses the constitutional authority to calculate and determine state financial losses.
This affirmation is rooted in the mandate of Article 23E of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 15 of 2006, effectively closing the room for varying interpretations that have long existed in legal practice, particularly in corruption cases (Tipikor).
More than just a declarative norm, this ruling carries erga omnes force, meaning it is universally binding and mandatory for all judicial institutions in Indonesia to obey.
Consequently, all courts, up to the cassation level, can no longer use calculations of state losses based on audits other than those conducted by the BPK as the basis for evidence.
Legal practitioner Joni Sudarso described this ruling as a major correction to law enforcement practices, which have previously been plagued by ambiguity.
“This MK ruling is not merely a clarification, but a constitutional order with erga omnes effect. Courts are now bound exclusively to BPK audits as the primary basis for proving state losses. This breaks the chain of multiple interpretations that have previously opened loopholes for irregularities in corruption law enforcement,” he stated on Sunday (4/5/2026).
He added that for years, the practice of using audits outside of BPK has often been used as a tool to legitimize case construction, and in several instances, was allegedly used to justify criminalization.
“With this ruling, there should no longer be room for the manipulation of state loss figures. Only BPK holds constitutional legitimacy. This is not just a matter of procedure, but concerns the protection of citizens’ rights and the restoration of the dignity of justice,” he emphasized.
Field reality shows that prior to this ruling, several corruption cases were mired in controversy. One example is the case of Amin Sukoco in Karanganyar (2025), where state losses were calculated using the ‘total loss’ method and internal audits, even though the assets were deemed still usable and most of the losses had been restituted.
Other figures such as Ira Puspita Dewi and Amsal Sitepu are also cited as part of a similar phenomenon, where case construction was based on audits whose legal standing was questionable.
In this context, the MK ruling serves as a clear demarcation line between old practices rife with ambiguity and a new direction of law enforcement based on legal certainty. The role of other agencies, such as the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), remains relevant for supervision and initial auditing stages, but can no longer be used as the sole basis for evidence in court proceedings.
This ruling also reinforces the division of roles between institutions: BPK as the constitutional auditor, law enforcement agencies as investigators, and the courts as the assessors of evidence.
Amid hopes for legal system reform, the moral message of this ruling serves as a stern warning to all law enforcement officials.
“Law must no longer be used as a tool for certain interests. This ruling is a beacon for those seeking justice. All parties are forced to return to the path of objective and integrity-based law,” Joni Sudarso continued.
Ultimately, this ruling is not merely a juridical product, but a symbol of resistance against past injustices. It asserts that law must stand above the Constitution, not above interests.
“Let us make this ruling our shared guideline. Courts must comply, law enforcers must be professional. Justice belongs not to the few, but is the right of the entire Indonesian people,” he concluded.
#@Reported from various media sources //photo from Google documents // contribution by Prime News Post international online media // news.paper
Related News
