Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Regulations for eradicating Corruption Crimes in Indonesia have regulated the examination of cases without the presence of the defendant in Court, however examinations at the investigation stage are not regulated, thus having an impact on the effectiveness of eradicating criminal acts of corruption. The aim of this research is to analyze the regulations for investigating cases of corruption crimes that have not been fair and to explore the weaknesses in the rules for investigating in absentia cases of criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia which are based on the value of justice. The paradigm used in this research is the Constructivism Paradigm, a type of normative juridical research and the research approach used is a statutory approach, a case approach, using primary and secondary data. The research results were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. The results of research into in absentia investigations into cases of criminal acts of corruption can give rise to differences in interpretation among law enforcement officials ranging from Investigators, Public Prosecutors to Judges, each of whom has inherent authority in examining cases of criminal acts of corruption, especially in examining cases involving prospective witnesses. suspects, suspects and defendants are not present even though they have been legally summoned without giving a proper and reasonable reason, the legal vacuum regulating in absentia investigations of corruption cases can be used by perpetrators of corruption crimes to evade the law enforcement process by running away and can be used as an excuse not to continue the investigation and transfer the case from the investigator to the public prosecutor and can be used as a reason to refuse prosecution by the Public Prosecutor. To realize the eradication of criminal acts of corruption based on the value of justice, it is necessary to reconstruct the regulations for investigations in absentia in the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes by regulating 1) the exclusion of examining witnesses before being named as suspects with conditions; 2) waiver of examination of the suspect with conditions; 3) procedures/mechanisms for examining cases without the presence of the suspect; 4) waiver of handover of responsibility for the case from the investigator to the public prosecutor without the presence of the suspect with conditions; and 5) restrictions on case examinations that can be carried out without the presence of the suspect.
Wahyuningsih et al. (Sat,) studied this question.