<![CDATA[This study examines Constitutional Court Decision Number 66/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the boundary of state financial loss between administrative law and criminal law. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, it finds that the Court rejected the petitioner's request to broaden "state financial loss" into "state loss", and instead read "kerugian negara" in Article 20(5) and (6) of Law Number 30 of 2014 as "kerugian keuangan negara" to secure terminological consistency and measurability. The ruling reinforces the ultimum remedium principle and APIP's role as the first filter. However, together with Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016, it has not yet produced a clear operational boundary between administrative and criminal liability, as administrative errors are still prosecuted as corruption. Legislative harmonization and judicial guidelines remain necessary.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
