Investigators of Police, Prosecution, KPK Synergize in Corruption Eradication

Inspector Gen. Viktor T. Sihombing of the National Police testifying at a material judicial review hearing of the Prosecution and KPK Laws, Monday (6/26/2023) as a Relevant Party. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — In criminal law enforcement mechanism, the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) expressly stipulates an integrated criminal law enforcement system, including the investigation process by Police or civil servant (PNS) investigators, prosecution by the Prosecution Office, and examination by a court judge. Each law enforcement action is proportionally limited and there is functional differentiation among law enforcers, along with a supervisory system by other law enforcement agencies. Thus, the domination of balance in the KUHAP serves to limit the accumulation of power to curb arrogance among law enforcers.

This statement was made by Inspector Gen. Viktor T. Sihombing of the National Police as a Relevant Party at a material judicial review hearing for case No. 28/PUU-XXI/2023, which the Constitutional Court (MK) held on Monday, June 26, 2023. The Petitioner challenges Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office; Article 39 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption; as well as Article 44 paragraphs (4) and (5) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office;” Article 50 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office;” and Article 50 paragraph (4) on the phrase “and/or the Prosecution Office” of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

“Therefore, in order to support the commitment of law enforcement in eradicating corruption, the National Police, the Prosecution Office, and the KPK have synergized well to optimize corruption eradication in the scope of intelligence, inquiry, investigation, and prosecution. This is also implemented in memoranda of understanding between the three institutions, so the Petitioner’s concern about the absence of control in granting investigative authority for certain criminal offenses to the Prosecution Office is not proven,” Sihombing said before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and the other constitutional justices in the plenary courtroom.

Clarification and Modification

Sihombing also mentioned functional differentiation for the division of tasks and authority in the ranks of law enforcement officials institutionally. The KUHAP lays down the principle of clarification and modification of the functions and authority of each law enforcement agency.

The clarification of the grouping was arranged in such a way that correlation and coordination in law enforcement agencies is maintained to be interrelated and sustainable, up to the level of the execution and supervision of observation of the execution. 

Scope of Authority

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked for additional information from the Police of the scope of the Police’s and Prosecution Office’s authority in the MoU so it can answer the Petitioner’s arguments.

This suggestion was also made by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, who said that the Police are supervised in carrying out their investigative duties, while the Prosecution Office is not. Therefore, he requested that the Relevant Party mention the form of supervision by other institutions that carry out investigation. “If possible, it can be based on the Police’s experience. Moreover, there is an MoU; if there is supervision, what is the form and why such supervision is recommended,” he said.

Before declaring the session adjourned, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said the hearing would commence on July 11 at 11:00 WIB to hear the Petitioner’s expert. He asked that the expert’s written statement and profile be submitted no later than two days before the start of the hearing. 

Also read:

Advocate Challenges Prosecution’s Investigative Authority 

Advocate Revises Petition on Prosecution’s Investigative Authority

House’s View on Prosecution’s Authority to Investigate 

Govt: 1945 Constitution Does Not Prohibit Prosecution Office’s Dual Authority 

Different Functions of Police, Prosecution, KPK in Corruption Eradication 

The petition No. 28/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by M. Jasin Jamaluddin, an advocate. At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, he asserted that the a quo articles were in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and that the granting of investigative authority on certain offenses to the Prosecution has led it to become a superpower. In addition to prosecution, it can also investigate.

The authority, which was granted by Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of the Prosecution Law, has enabled the Prosecution to conduct investigation arbitrarily. In addition, since pre-prosecution over investigations carried out by prosecutors is also carried out by prosecutors, so there is no control over investigations carried out by prosecutors by other institutions. In the absence of such control, prosecutors often ignore requests for the rights of suspects, such as requests for the examination of witnesses/experts for suspects to shed light on a case.

On February 21, 2023, a prosecutor declared the Petitioner’s client’s dossier incomplete and that a follow-up investigation would be carried out. However, despite the investigating prosecutor not having carried out that investigation, on February 23, the pre-prosecution prosecutor declared the dossier complete and transferred it to the public prosecutor. During the investigation, the Petitioner’s client asked that his witnesses and experts be examined to shed light on the case. however, the investigator and pre-prosecution prosecutor ignored the request.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare all the petitioned articles in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.    

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

Monday, June 26, 2023 | 14:41 WIB 117