The revision of the Attorney General’s Law (RUU), which is currently drawing polemic in the community, has also been highlighted by many experts. One of them is Indriyanto Seno Adji, Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Indonesia (UI).
Regarding the Draft Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, Indriyanto is of the opinion that the current revision of polemic can prevent law enforcers from becoming political tools. Because in this bill, law enforcement will prioritize the Authority Monitoring System so that an Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS) can be realized.
“As expected of the community and aims to better serve justice seekers, protect and maintain democracy. This prevents law enforcers from becoming political tools, ”said Indriyanto in his statement, Friday (11/9).
It is known that the DPR is currently revising the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, but the revision has resulted in polemic. Because it is feared that the Attorney General’s Office will become more powerful with authority from upstream to downstream.
The revision of the article referred to, namely article 30 paragraph 5 which regulates the powers and duties of the Attorney General’s Office in the field of public order and peace, namely investigations, security and mobilization to support law enforcement activities and policies which include, authority as law enforcement intelligence, increasing public legal awareness, safeguarding. law enforcement policies.
In addition, supervision of the circulation of printed and multimedia goods, supervision of religious beliefs that can endanger the community and the state, prevention of misuse and / or blasphemy of religion, tapping and organizing a monitoring center
According to Indriyanto, the articles in the revision of the Law on the Prosecution are still within the linear boundaries of the Integrated Criminal Justice System.
“The revision of the Law, philosophically, juridically and also in terms of constitutional law 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,” he said.
According to Indriyanto, the system of investigative-prosecution authority relations in the revision of the Law is in fact characterized by modern criminal law which recognizes the separation of Institution of Sharing Powers (Distribution of Powers) between the Police and the Attorney General’s Office, including the form of tasks and functions of pro justitia powers.
In addition, he said, 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 two pillars of law enforcement, the police and prosecutors. This model can minimize sectoral egos between the two institutions, “he said.
Regarding the polemic, whether or not there is an expansion of the prosecutor’s projustitia authority, according to Indriyanto, is something that is normal. As long as this authority remains in the supervisory system of the preliminary examining judge institution as the guardian of justicial supervision.
“Therefore, the Prosecutor’s Bill must adjust and not deviate from the RKUHAP,” he said.
Indriyanto also added, if it is true that there is an expansion of pro justitia authority, this distribution of powers model must be based on the checks and balances system. “So that the principle of equal arms between the Police and the Prosecutors is maintained, for example a good coordination model between the pillars of law enforcement,” he concluded.
Source: https://www.jawapos.com/nasional/politik/11/09/2020/revisi-uu-kejaksaan-tuai-polemik-ini-kata-pakar-hukum-ui/
