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

bpk is the only state institution that is given constitutional authority to carry out examination with specific purposes (pdtt) in order to state the presence or absence of state financial losses in the final conclusion of the audit report (lhp). such provisions have legal implications, namely (1) juridical implications for the principle of legal certainty; and (2) implications for the principle of trial speed in law enforcement on criminal acts of corruption. investigation of criminal acts of corruption on state financial losses, 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 long waiting time. this is the obstacle of investigators in dealing with corruption in state financial losses in the regions. 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 but was carried out by the auditor at the bpk headquarters in jakarta. delay in handling criminal acts of corruption of state financial losses, a legal breakthrough is needed by delegating authority (mandate) from the central bpk to bpk representative auditors in the regions, so that the bpk representative has the authority to investigate investigations independently.