Application Criminal Chamber Formulation Number 6 in Circular of the Supreme Court No. 4 of 2016 concerning the Authority of the State Audit AgencyDeclares State Losses Case Study in the Corruption Court at the Padang District Court

Abstract

In the formulation of the criminal chamber number 6 of the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2016 states that the authorized agency states that there is no state financial loss is the State Audit Agency while other agencies such as the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency or other institutions are still authorized to conduct audits and audits of state financial management but not authorized to declare a state financial loss. The Supreme Court Circular was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 31 / PUU-X / 2012 dated October 8, 2012 which stated that both the Supreme Audit Agencyand the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency could calculate and declare state financial losses. Based on this, this study raises the problem, namely: First, How is the application of the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2016 (formulation of criminal chamber number 6) in the Corruption Court at the Padang District Court from 2016 to 2019. Second and What are the Judges' considerations in applying / not applying the Supreme Court Circular No. 4 of 2016. The research method used is the empirical juridical research method. Based on the results of research that has been done, the application of the criminal chamber formula number 6 in the Supreme Court Circular is not yet fully carried out. This can be seen from the case data submitted to the Corruption Criminal Court showing the low application of the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2016. From the number of cases that have been tried and decided during 2016 to 2019, there are only 16 cases of corruption that use experts from the Supreme Audit Agency. The amount is far less when compared to cases that use experts from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency and other institutions that is 127 cases. This means that throughout 2016 until 2019, only as many as 11.11% of the total cases of 144 cases that apply the Criminal chamber formula number 6 of the Supreme Court Circular. Although the basis of authority of the Supreme Audit Agencyis clearly and firmly regulated in article 23E of the 1945 Constitution. The legal basis of the authority of the Supreme Audit Agencyis governed by regulations at the highest level. Unlike the basic authority of the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency which is only based on government regulations and regulations below, the position of the Supreme Audit Agencyis very strong. The reality is that in practice there is dualism in the application of the authorized institution in declaring state losses in the Corruption Court at the Padang District Court. In consideration, Judge's consideration in applying or not applying the Supreme Court Circular Letter is that the judge is not bound by the Supreme Court Circular and the judge himself can assess the existence of state financial losses.