Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Normative-empirical analysis examines corruption investigations in Indonesia, indicating stronger legal frameworks are needed.
Corruption remains a complex issue in Indonesia, partly caused by legal uncertainties in prolonged investigations and inconsistent regulations among law enforcement bodies. This study examines the implementation of investigative authority over corruption cases by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the National Police, and the Prosecutor’s Office. It also proposes reinforcing the Prosecutor’s Office’s dominus litis principle to prevent investigations lacking legal certainty. Employing a normative-empirical method through legislative, conceptual, and case analyses, the research’s novelty lies in integrating dominus litis as a systematic solution to unclear investigation deadlines and inconsistent case management. Findings reveal that the lack of strict investigation time limits in the Criminal Procedure Code and varying internal policies across agencies cause injustice and human rights violations against suspects. Strengthening the Prosecutor’s Office’s dominus litis role from the investigation phase is essential to improve coordination, legal certainty, and efficiency. The study recommends harmonizing investigation deadlines between agencies and empowering the Prosecutor’s Office to issue case dismissal recommendations based on evidence evaluation. This research contributes significantly to reforms towards a more just criminal justice system with a human rights focus
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: