implications of bpk’s juridic as the only status institution given authoritydeclares state financial damages in corruption criminal action

Bpk is the only state institution that is given constitutional authority to carry out examination withspecific purposes (pdtt) in order to state the presence or absence of state financial losses in the finalconclusion of the audit report (lhp). such provisions have legal implications, namely (1) juridicalimplications for the principle of legal certainty; and (2) implications for the principle of trial speed in lawenforcement on criminal acts of corruption. investigation of criminal acts of corruption on state financiallosses, requires a real element of loss based on the calculation of the authorized agency. at this stage,there are still investigators who use the results of investigative audits rather than bpk, because of the longwaiting time. this is the obstacle of investigators in dealing with corruption in state financial losses in theregions. investigators are waiting for quite a long time to obtain the audit report (lhp) from the bpk,moreover the investigative audit was not carried out by the bpk representative auditor in the region butwas carried out by the auditor at the bpk headquarters in jakarta. delay in handling criminal acts ofcorruption of state financial losses, a legal breakthrough is needed by delegating authority (mandate) fromthe central bpk to bpk representative auditors in the regions, so that the bpk representative has theauthority to investigate investigations independently.