Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia carries out state prosecutorial powers as regulated in Law Number 16 of 2004 which has been amended by Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia (UU Prosecutor's Office). The Supreme Prosecutor's position is as the Highest Public Prosecutor (dominus litis). This is also reflected in the Elucidation of Article 57 paragraph (1) of Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice which explains that the Prosecutor General in carrying out prosecutions within the military justice environment is responsible to the Attorney General as dominus litis. However, in practice, prosecutors often do not report the implementation of the prosecution of military criminal cases they handle to the Attorney General, so that unified implementation of the one-roof prosecution policy (one-roof system) has not been achieved. Reflecting on the various circumstances above, a Junior Attorney General for Military Crimes was formed in the organizational structure of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. Based on this description, the formulation of the problem studied by the author is: 1) What is the role and position of the Deputy Attorney General for Military Crimes in connectivity cases? 2) What are the implications of the presence of the Deputy Attorney General for Military Crimes in connection cases? The research method used is normative juridical with descriptive research. The data collection technique used is document study as the main data. Based on the research results, it can be concluded that Attorney General for Military Crimes has the role of supporting the Attorney General in carrying out the duties and authority of the Prosecutor's Office in the field of technical coordination of prosecutions carried out by the judiciary and handling connection cases. The presence of Attorney General for Military Crimes has implications for efforts to eradicate issues of disparity and dualism in prosecution as well as striving for effectiveness, efficiency and transparency in the process of handling connectivity cases.
Panjaitan et al. (Tue,) studied this question.