Kewenangan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) Dalam Menghitung Dan Menyatakan Kerugian Keuangan Negara Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.28/Puu-Xxiv/2026: Implikasi Terhadap Kedudukan Aparat Pengawas Internal Pemerintah (APIP)

Abstract

APIP and BPK have the authority to supervise and assess state financial losses. However, differences in regulations and implementation practices create overlapping authority and legal uncertainty. This problem has become stronger after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 which confirmed the BPK as an institution authorized to audit state finances, thus giving rise to debate regarding the position of APIP in calculating state financial losses and potentially affecting the effectiveness of law enforcement for corruption crimes. The formulation of the problem of this research is 1. What are the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the authority of the Supreme Audit Agency and the Internal Supervisory Apparatus in declaring state financial losses according to applicable laws and regulations? 2. How is the harmonization of the authority of the Supreme Audit Agency and the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus in its implications for the authority to calculate state financial losses to support the effectiveness of law enforcement? The normative legal research method is carried out both by examining library materials in the form of laws and regulations, and literature. The research results show that Constitutional Court Decision Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 provides legal certainty regarding the authority of the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) and the Audit Board of Indonesia (APIP) in managing state financial losses. The decision affirms that the BPK is the institution with the constitutional authority to declare state financial losses, while the APIP plays a role in internal supervision, prevention, and development. Through harmonization of authority supported by clear coordination and division of tasks, both institutions can carry out their functions in a complementary manner to increase the effectiveness of state financial oversight and support law enforcement for corruption.