Member of the Third Commission of the House of Representatives, Rudianto Lallo, delivering a statement on the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Attorney General’s Office, Thursday (19/6). Photo by MKRI/Ifa
Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office on Thursday, June 19, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom.
The hearing was to hear testimony from the House of Representatives, the President (government), and the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, KPK) as related parties. The session combined the hearing of three cases: Case No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025, Case No.15/PUU-XXIII/2025, and Case No. 67/PUU-XXIII/2025.
Member of the Third Commission of the House of Representatives, Rudianto Lallo, stated that the House’s statement regarding Case No. 67/PUU-XXIII/2025 also reflected the substance of Case No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025 and Case No. 15/PUU-XXIII/2025, which was conveyed on May 26, 2025. He emphasized the importance of the Attorney General’s Office in the Indonesian criminal adjudication system.
"The Attorney General’s Office is a state institution that plays a central role in law enforcement and in upholding the rule of law within the Indonesian legal system. As prosecutors, who are responsible for conducting and overseeing prosecutions, they play a vital role in shaping a society that respects the law and human rights," Rudianto stated.
He also emphasized the importance of protecting the prosecutorial profession. According to him, in the course of their duties, prosecutors often face situations that pose risks to their personal safety as well as that of their families. Therefore, the state is obligated to guarantee legal protection for prosecutors, as referenced in international declarations on minimum standards for the protection of public prosecutors.
Protection of prosecutors in Indonesia, he added, among other things, is stipulated in Article 8 paragraph (5) of the Attorney General’s Office Law (AGO Law), which requires the Attorney General’s permission to summon, search, or detain a prosecutor who is suspected of committing a crime.
Legal Certainty on Authority of the Attorney General’s Office
Similarly, the government statement, delivered by Asep Nana Mulyana, explained that the arrangement to appoint the Attorney General as the highest prosecutor provides legal certainty regarding the authority of the Attorney General’s Office. They mentioned that the regulation aligns with the principles in the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, adopted by the UN Congress in 1990, including the dominus litis and opportunity principles that are vested exclusively in the Attorney General.
"The Attorney General is the highest leader and chief authority of the Attorney General’s Office, while also serving as the nation’s highest-ranking investigator, public prosecutor, and state attorney (Procureur General, Advocaat Generaal, Solicitor General). This authority is long-established and continues to evolve," Asep stated during the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
Asep also said the concept of Advocaat Generaal is similar to the system applied in the Netherlands, that is to provide a legal opinion in all cassation applications. This function is also regulated in the Supreme Court Law.
Administrative Procedure
Meanwhile, the Relevant Party from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), represented by KPK Vice Chair Johanis Tanak, emphasized that the requirement for the Attorney General’s approval as a form of prosecutorial protection does not constitute immunity for prosecutors. Rather, it serves solely as an administrative procedure to ensure that the assessment of the duties and authorities exercised by a prosecutor suspected of committing a criminal act is properly conducted by the prosecutorial institution, namely the Attorney General. “This procedure is deemed necessary to ensure that prosecutors, in carrying out their professional duties, are not easily intimidated, disrupted, harassed, subjected to civil lawsuits, reported for criminal charges, or otherwise held liable for actions taken in the course of their profession,” he stated.
He further explained that under the Law on the Attorney General’s Office, prosecutors are defined as civil servants holding functional positions with specific characteristics, carrying out their duties, functions, and authorities based on law. Institutionally, the KPK shares the same view as the Government in the judicial review of Case No. 55/PUU-XI/2013 before the Constitutional Court—that prosecutors, as one of the law enforcement professions within the criminal justice system, hold an honorable and noble role. In performing their duties, functions, and authorities, prosecutors require legal protection, as they act on behalf of the state to safeguard public and societal interests through the execution of their prosecutorial responsibilities.
Also read:
Petitioners Question Prosecutors’ Unlimited Immunity
Advocates Revise Petition on Prosecutors’ Immunity
Guaranteeing Legal Protection for Prosecutors and Their Families
Case No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by advocates Agus Salim and Agung Arafat Saputra. They challenge Article 8 paragraph (5) of the Prosecution Law, which reads, “In exercising their duties and authority, summon, inspection, search, arrest, and detention against a prosecutor may only be executed with Attorney General’s approval.”
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 5, legal counsel Ibnu Syamsu Hidayat argued that the article has given prosecutors absolute immunity, thus could potentially hinder supervision and increase the risk of abuse of authority.
“The article has led to absolute immunity of prosecutors, so that control or supervision over the performance of prosecutors has become difficult. It could potentially lead to abuse of authority, ‘superpower’ practices, and even corruption acts. Therefore, there must be a clear limit on the right to immunity of law enforcement apparatuses,” Ibnu said.
The Petitioners compared the right to immunity of prosecutors and that of advocates, which is regulated under Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. The article stipulates that advocates cannot be prosecuted either civilly or criminally in carrying out their professional duties in good faith for the defense of clients in court.
The Petitioners believes that there should also be a similar limit on the right to immunity of prosecutors in order to preserve the principle of equality before the law. “This phrase is highly catch-all and has no legal certainty. It makes it easy for something that prosecutors should not do to be claimed as something within the execution of their duties and authority,” Ibnu stressed.
Therefore, in the petitums, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant their petition. They also asked that the Court declare Article 8 paragraph (5) of the Prosecution Law unconstitutional.
Also read:
Prosecutors’ Overlapping Authorities Questioned
Petitioners Strengthen Arguments on the Cause of Prosecutor’s Authority Overlap
Case No. 15/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Agus Setiawan (Activist/University Student), Sulaiman (Advocate), and Civil Youth Alliance (Perhimpunan Pemuda Madani). The petitioners challenged Article 11 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 30B letter a, Article 35 paragraph (1) letter g and letter e of the General Attorney’s Office Law. The Petitioners argued that the articles were contrary to Article 30 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Based on the provisions of Article 11A of the Attorney General’s Office Law, the Prosecutor’s duties implementation, as referred to in paragraph (1), may be conducted with concurrent positions as long as they relate to the competence and authority of the Prosecutor. According to the Petitioners, this is contrary to Article 24 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution because the extension of the Prosecutor’s duties to occupy or fill positions outside the prosecutorial institution undermines the freedom and independence of the institution.
“Authorizing the prosecutor to fill any position without a firm and clear regulation will make the Prosecutor’s Office a multifunctional institution that causes damage to the independence of the Prosecutor’s Office,” Agus Setiawan explained during the panel hearing on Thursday, March 3, 2025.
Article 35 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 21 of 2021 gives the authority to the Attorney General to submit technical legal considerations to the Supreme Court in the cassation examination within the scope of general courts, state administrative courts, religious courts, and military courts. According to the Petitioners, the said Attorney General’s authority was a form of legalized covert intervention through the interpretation of the phrase “legal technical.”
The Petitioners also questioned the extension of the prosecutor's duties and authorities in Article 35 paragraph (1) letter g of the Attorney General’s Office Law to coordinate, control, and conduct investigations, examinations, and prosecutions of criminal offenses, which may lead to overlapping authorities. Sulaiman added that the prosecutors’ authority in the examination should be limited to specific criminal offenses stipulated under law and regulations.
Also read:
Advocates Question Disparity between Prosecutors and Other Law Enforcement Officials in Attorney General’s Office Law
Petition on Prosecutors’ Immunity Right Revised
Petition No. 67/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Harmoko and Juanda who work as advocates. In the preliminary hearing on Friday, May 16, 2025, the petitioners argued that Article 8 paragraph (5) of the AGO Law gave prosecutors immunity, meaning prosecutors may commit a crime when carrying out their duties and exercising their authority. Meanwhile, summoning, examining, searching, arresting, and detaining may only be conducted with permission from the Attorney General. According to the Petitioners, this article gave the prosecutor disparate treatment from other law enforcers, such as judges, police, and advocates. The norm was also deemed not to provide exceptions to the qualifications and types of crimes prosecutors may commit.
Meanwhile, despite having an immunity right, as stipulated in Article 16 of the Advocates Law and further emphazied by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 26/PUU-XI/2013, advocates must be examined and apprehended without written permission from the chairmen of advocate organizations or other parties when carrying out their professional duties in good faith but violating the law. With the different treatment, the provisions in Article 8 paragraph 5 of the Prosecutor's Office Law contradict Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which recognized the principle of equality before the law.
Then the Petitioners also requested that the Court declare the provisions of Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “In carrying out its duties and authorities, summoning, examination, searching, arresting, and detaining prosecutors can only be made with the written approval of the President and if the President does not give the written approval within a maximum period of 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of the application letter, the investigation process followed by detention can be carried out immediately.”
Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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.
Thursday, June 19, 2025 | 13:59 WIB 1666