Drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill in Accordance with the Structure and Function of Each Legal Institution
By: Esari Nisa
The update to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) through the Draft Law (RUU) currently being drafted by the government and the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) is an important momentum in strengthening the national criminal justice system. The drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill is designed not only to adjust to contemporary legal dynamics, but also to ensure that the structure and function of each law enforcement agency are in the right, efficient, and professional corridor. This alignment is the main foundation in maintaining integrity, effectiveness, and synergy between legal institutions in the law enforcement process.
One of the important figures who pays great attention to the drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill is the Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights, Prof. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej. He emphasized the importance of functional differentiation in the Indonesian criminal law system. In his view, a clear separation between the investigation function which is the domain of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) and the prosecution function which is the authority of the Prosecutor’s Office is the main principle in maintaining the order of the legal process. This view reflects the belief that the investigator’s duties should not be mixed with the authority of the public prosecutor, in order to ensure objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest in the law enforcement process.
The clarity of this role is increasingly important because an integrated criminal justice system will only function well if each institution understands and carries out its respective functions. In this system, the National Police acts as the main investigator responsible for collecting evidence and carrying out investigations and inquiries.
On the other hand, the Prosecutor’s Office as the public prosecutor plays a role in bringing cases to the realm of justice. In this system, civil servant investigators (PPNS) are placed as supporting implementers who remain under the coordination and supervision of the National Police. Thus, the system that is built upholds the principle of solid cooperation between institutions without blurring the boundaries of each other’s authority.
This concept is reinforced by the opinion of a legal academic from Airlangga University, Prof. Sri Winarsi, who sees that a number of articles in the draft of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill have accommodated the spirit of differentiation. In these articles, there are systematic efforts to avoid overlapping authorities and ensure that work between institutions is carried out within a professional coordination framework. For him, a clear division of tasks will not only avoid conflict, but also increase efficiency in the implementation of the law as a whole.
The Criminal Procedure Code Bill has also received attention from wider academic circles, as reflected in the recommendations from the workshop delivered by Prof. Dr. Amir Ilyas from Hasanuddin University. In a scientific forum attended by various groups, it was concluded that the new Criminal Procedure Code must be based on the principle of a clear division of functions between the investigative and public prosecutorial institutions. The recommendation rejects the principle of dominis litis being applied rigidly, and instead supports limited, measurable autonomy for each institution. Amir reminded that independence in investigations by the Police and prosecutions by the Prosecutor’s Office is key to maintaining public trust in the legal system.
However, he also noted that there are a number of articles in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill that are considered to have the potential to weaken the independence of the Police as investigators. Therefore, he encouraged these articles to be reviewed by involving various stakeholders, especially from within institutions that are directly affected. This is a manifestation of a participatory approach in the formation of laws that prioritize transparency and accountability.
The importance of maintaining a functional structure that is aligned in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill cannot be separated from the principle of good governance in the legal sector. In this case, the government has demonstrated its commitment to not only drafting new regulations, but also ensuring that these regulations can be implemented effectively by the institutions involved. Placing the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the PPNS in positions that are in accordance with their respective functions and authorities is part of an effort to create a responsive legal system that is oriented towards substantive justice. The synergy between law enforcement agencies driven by the drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill is the meeting point for the principles of efficiency and accuracy in law enforcement. By ensuring that investigations remain the domain of the National Police and prosecutions are the authority of the Prosecutor’s Office, the legal process will run within a healthy framework of checks and balances.
