The revision of the Draft Law (RUU) of the Attorney General’s Office carried out by the Legislation Body (Baleg) of the DPR RI has met the expectations of the public. Because the bill aims to better serve the justice seekers, protect and maintain democracy, and prevent law enforcers from becoming political tools.
This was stated by Professor of Criminal Law and lecturer of the postgraduate program in the field of law studies at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (FHUI), Prof. Dr. Indriyanto Seno Adji regarding the Revision of the Draft Law on the Attorney General’s Office, Wednesday (16/9). “In the bill, law enforcement will prioritize a system of supervision of authority so that an integrated criminal justice system (ICJS) can be realized,” said Indriyanto.
According to Indriyanto, the Prosecutor’s Bill is philosophically juridical and also the facet of constitutional law (HTN) and criminal law has two aspects that do not deviate from the principles of due process of law and are still within the ICJS linear corridor. First, the system of authority relations for investigation and prosecution has the character of modern criminal law, which recognizes the existence of Separation Institution of Sharing Powers or Distribution of Powers between the police and the prosecutor’s office, including the form of duties and functions of pro justitia authority.
Second, he added, the understanding of the authority relation of the investigation and prosecution system that is absolutely separate as a model of separation of power has been abandoned because it is considered a tyrannical and misleading definition. “Therefore, the distribution of authority in the ICJS is legitimate towards the principles of coordination and cooperation between the 2 pillars of law enforcement (police and prosecutors).
This model minimizes the sectoral ego between these two institutions, “explained Indriyanto Seno Adji. This criminal law expert from the University of Indonesia believes that the polemic of whether or not there is an extension of the prosecutor’s pro justitia power is something that is normal, as long as that authority remains in the supervision system of the preliminary examining judges as the guardian of justitial supervision. “Therefore, the Draft Law on the Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP) in the future must adjust and not deviate from it,” he said.
In addition, said Indriyanto, if it is true that there is an expansion of pro justitia authority, this distribution of powers model must remain based on a checks and balances system, so that the principle of equal arms between the police and prosecutors is maintained, for example a model of good coordination between the pillars of law enforcement is Article 50. KPK Law. “The pillar of law enforcement should prioritize a system of supervision of authority so that the ICJS is realized according to the expectations of the community,” said Indriyanto.
