弁護人から憲法裁判所への訴えられた捜査当局、AGO:腐敗者の反撃に注意する

The Attorney General's Office ensures that the judicial review of the authority to investigate corruption by the Prosecutor's Office, which is proposed by a lawyer/advocate, does not weaken the enthusiasm of the prosecutors, both at the central and regional levels, to handle and eradicate corruption in the country.

The Head of the Legal Information Center (Kapuspenkum) of the Attorney General's Office, Ketut Sumedana, said that the judicial review of authority was not the first, so it did not interfere with the prosecutor's psychology in investigating corruption cases involving corporations or the government.

"No one (is disturbed or psychologically affected), everyone must be alert in dealing with things like this, it could be in the form of psychological and psychological so it needs to be anticipated from an early age," Sumedana said as quoted by ANTARA, Sunday, May 14.

Sumedana said that it was normal for prosecutors to face challenges from parties that were made uncomfortable with the consistency of the Indonesian Attorney General's Office in eradicating corruption.

He quoted what Attorney General Sanitiar Burhanuddin said regarding the handling of corruption cases both at the regional and central levels, so that they were carried out objectively, transparently, continuously, and not selectively. "The most important thing is not to be selective and consistent," said Sumedana.

The consistency of prosecutors in eradicating corruption is said to have an impact on psychology or dislike for institutions, so that in various ways, corruptors will play their roles such as providing material and immaterial temptation, even with physical threats.

According to him, the judicial review of the Prosecutor's Office's authority in investigating corruption crimes is most intensively carried out by corruptors. The lawsuit has been repeatedly carried out, one of which was after it was passed by Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian Attorney General's Office.

Sumedana said that the plaintiff forgot the capacity of the Prosecutor in which the Prosecutor's authority in corruption is not only regulated in the Prosecutor's Law, but also in the Corruption Eradication Commission Law, laws on eradicating corruption, laws on state administrators that are clean and free from corruption, collusion and nepotism, as well as laws on preventing and eradicating money laundering.

Not only that, but also in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights and Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, the Prosecutor's Office has the authority as an investigator.

"The Prosecutor's Office has a long history of investigating mega corruption cases, one of which was the Coordinator of the Corruption Eradication Team Investigation Team (Tipikor Eradication Team) in 1998," he explained.

Then, regarding the functional differentiation being sued, Ketut explained that as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, namely the separation of authority in each institution such as investigation, prosecution, and examination in court, this is an issue of oblique libelias blurring the real function of modern law enforcers who have functions of coordination, synergy, and collaboration.

So if it is associated with functional differentiation, he said, it is very inappropriate and even the KPK as an institution that has investigators, investigators, public prosecutors, and executions, is on the same roof as a form of law enforcement reform. The AGO considers these lawsuits to have come out of the context of modern law enforcement and injures the constitution, namely that no single institution has absolute authority in terms of law enforcement, including the Prosecutor as the dominus of the litisyakni controlling case, and still has a coordination function with investigators and supervision with courts and correctional institutions.

The duties and authorities of the Prosecutor's Office are the handling of cases from upstream to downstream, as well as ensuring that investigations from various institutions run well, thus producing good prosecution and proof processes.

"Even in the process of extraordinary legal remedies, it will be the responsibility of the Prosecutor as the Public Prosecutor and Prosecutor, to the execution of criminal decisions that already have permanent legal force (inkrah)," he said.

According to the AGO, there was an error by placing the investigation process based on functional differentiation, which only divided the functions of each institution, and kept synergy and collaboration away in case handling.

These things cause cases to occur back and forth, create uncertainty in law enforcement, and even the benefits of law enforcement are not felt by the community.

If the lawsuit to weaken Law Enforcement Officials is granted, then this is very contrary to the spirit of the Prosecutor's Office in handling mega corruption cases which resulted in state losses of up to trillions of rupiah such as PT Asuransi Jiwasraya, PT Asabri, PT Garuda Indonesia, cooking oil, Duta Palma, PT Waskita Karya, salt imports, textile imports, and so on.

"So this is what must be voiced that the interests and resistance of corruptors are not only threats to law enforcement, but also paralyzed the spirit of eradicating corruption itself," said Ketut.