Pluralism of Authority in Calculating State Financial Losses: Challenges and Policy Recommendations
Keywords:
Institutional Pluralism, State Financial Losses, Authority.Abstract
Institutional pluralism in calculating state financial losses is a structural reality in the Indonesian legal system. This authority does not reside in a single institution, but is spread across several institutions with varying legitimacy. Constitutionally, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) has attributive authority as the state's external auditor. On the other hand, the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPK) carries out internal oversight functions based on administrative authority under the President, while law enforcement officials use the results of state loss calculations as part of the evidence in corruption cases. This configuration creates institutional pluralism that is both structural and functional. This research is a normative legal study with a statutory approach. The focus of the study is directed at analyzing the legal basis, the nature of authority, and the implications of institutional pluralism for legal certainty in judicial practice. The results indicate that other institutions besides the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) have the authority to calculate state losses, namely the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency, Law Enforcement Officials, and Public Accountants. This institutional pluralism has the potential to lead to overlapping, conflicting interpretations, and disparities in the results of state loss calculations. This condition poses a serious challenge to legal certainty, particularly in proving state financial losses in corruption cases. To address this problem, this study recommends four policy steps, namely the preparation of standard methods for calculating state losses, confirmation in laws and regulations, centralization of an independent institution, namely the Supreme Audit Agency, and the establishment of a formal and binding coordination mechanism between the audit institution and law enforcement officials
Downloads
References
Abdul Latif, dkk. (2024). Penetapan Kerugian Keuangan Negara atas Dugaan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Cetakan ketiga). Kencana.
Anonim. (2026, Februari 26). Yusril: Tak ada Kerugian Negara dalam Kasus Dahlan. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/yusril--tak-ada-kerugian-negara-dalam-kasus-dahlan-lt55b5dfeb33095/.
Ariance Boboy, dkk. (2021). Kewenangan Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan Menentukan Unsur Kerugian Negara terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Sibatik Journal, 1, 54.
Barda Nawawi Arief. (2016). Kebijakan Hukum Pidana: Perkembangan Penyusunan Konsep KUHP Baru. Kencana.
Basrief Arief. (2006). Korupsi dan Upaya Penegakan Hukum (Kapita Selekta). Adika Remaja Indonesia.
Bivitri. (2014). Pluralisme Kelembagaan dan Problematika Kepastian Hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi, 11(3), 488.
Cut Faizal Salsabilah Ni Ajeng Amalyh, dkk. (2025). Peran BPK sebagai Lembaga Negara dalam Meningkatkan Akuntabilitas Keuangan di Indonesia. Judge: Jurnal Hukum, 6(1), 171.
Eka Nam Sihombing dan Cynthia Hadita. (2022). Penelitian Hukum. Setara Press.
Hesti Armiwulan. (2013). Diskriminasi Rasial Dalam Hukum HAM: Studi Tentang Diskriminasi Terhadap Etnis Tionghoa. Genta Publishing.
I Made Fajar Pradnyana dan I Wayan Parsa. (2021). Kewenangan BPK dan BPKP dalam Menentukan Kerugian Keuangan Negara pada Perkara Korupsi. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana, 10(2), 345.
Jimly Asshiddiqie. (2006). Sengketa Kewenangan Konstitusional Lembaga Negara. Konstitusi Press.
Kaldera, dkk. (2020). Peran BPK sebagai Lembaga Pengawas Eksternal Pengelolaan Keuangan Negara. Jurnal Fundamental Justice, 1(2), 16.
Lilik Mulyadi. (2014). Seraut Wajah Putusan Hakim dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Citra Aditya Bakti.
M. Thalib. (2022). Analisis Kewenangan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia Berdasarkan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Limbago: Journal of Constitutional Law, 2(1), 42.
Moh. Askin. (2020). Penerapan Hukum dan Strategi Pemberantasan Korupsi (Studi Kasus BLBI) (Edisi Kedua). Kencana.
Muhammad Djafar Saidi. (2013). Hukum Keuangan Negara. PT. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Muhammad Ramadhan. (2021). Metode Penelitian. Cipta Media Nusantara.
Ni’Matul Huda. (2021). Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia. Rajawali Pers.
Philipus M. Hadjon. (2007). Kewenangan dalam Hukum Administrasi Negara. Gadjah Mada University Press.
Prajudi Atmosudirdjo. (1981). Hukum Administrasi Negara. Ghalia Indonesia.
Ridwan. (2009). Kebijakan Penegakan Hukum Pidana dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia. Jurnal Jure Humano, 1(1), 74.
Ridwan HR. (2018). Hukum Administrasi Negara. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Rizki Ramadani. (2020). Lembaga Negara Independen di Indonesia dalam Perspektif Konsep Independent Regulatory Agencies. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 27(1), 169.
Runi Yasir, dkk. (2019). Kewenangan Menetapkan Kerugian Keuangan Negara dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 3(2), 282.
Satjipto Rahardjo. (2009). Negara Hukum yang Membahagiakan Rakyatnya. Ganta Publishing.
Syarifuddin. (2021). Prinsip Keadilan dalam Mengadili Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Kencana.
Tim Pengkajian SPKN Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan. (2022). Upaya Pencegahan dan Penanggulangan Korupsi pada Pengelolaan APBN/APBD. Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan.
Tubagus Muhammad Nasarudin. (2020). Kedudukan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) sebagai Lembaga Negara di Bidang Pengawasan Keuangan Negara. Justicia Sains, 5(1), 91.
Zainuddin Ali. (2019). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muttaqin Harahap, Triono Eddy, Zainuddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
