Publisher

UBUB

Journal Arena HukumArena Hukum Abstract

This normative legal research examines the constitutional guarantee of implementing the principle of independence by the Prosecutors Office of the Republic of Indonesia as an institution implementing state power in law enforcement. The study results show that although the Prosecutors Office is categorized as an implementing agent of state power in the legal field with the principle of independence, its existence is not explicitly regulated in the Constitution. Ideally, the provision of the principle of independence to the Prosecutors Office must be balanced with constitutional guarantees so that it is not easily intervened in by any institution, especially the executive or legislative bodies. Therefore, the position of the Prosecutors Office should also be used as part of the material content of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Prosecutors Office has been positioned as an institution authorized to implement state power in the field of law enforcement, with its functions related to judicial power.However, the Constitution does not guarantee the implementation of the principles of freedom and independence for the Prosecutors Office.This is because the Prosecutors Office is not provided with any explicit regulatory space in the legal basis of the state.Such a loophole places the Prosecutors Office in a position susceptible to intervention by both the legislative body and the executive.It is necessary to provide stronger legitimacy for the Prosecutors Office by regulating it in the state Constitution.The position of the Prosecutors Office urgently needs redesigning, which requires it to be governed under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.Through such a regulatory model, it is hoped that the Prosecutors Office will obtain strong legitimacy to exercise its authority freely and independently without intervention by any institution.

Future Research

To ensure the independence and effectiveness of the Prosecutors Office, it is crucial to provide constitutional guarantees and strengthen its institutional framework. The following suggestions can be considered:. . 1. Reformulating the position of the Prosecutors Office in the Constitution: The current absence of explicit regulatory space for the Prosecutors Office in the Constitution leaves it vulnerable to intervention. By explicitly including the Prosecutors Office in the legal basis of the state, its independence can be better protected. This reformulation should emphasize its role as an independent institution, free from the influence of other state powers.. . 2. Enhancing institutional autonomy: The study highlights the need for the Prosecutors Office to be accountable to the wider community and report its performance to the legislative body. This suggestion can be further developed by exploring ways to enhance the institutional autonomy of the Prosecutors Office, ensuring its independence from executive and legislative interference. One possible approach is to establish an independent oversight body specifically for the Prosecutors Office, similar to the role of the Supreme Court for the judiciary.. . 3. Strengthening internal integrity and performance: While constitutional protection is essential, it is equally important for the Prosecutors Office to maintain its integrity and demonstrate competent performance. The study mentions the need for personnel to uphold the good name of the institution. Therefore, ongoing efforts to build an integrity zone and improve the welfare and development of employees should be continued and expanded. Additionally, implementing a robust code of ethics and establishing an effective internal disciplinary system can help maintain the integrity of the institution.

References

1. Peran Kejaksaan Dalam Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi | Indonesian... doi.org/10.31960/ijocl.v1i1.147Peran Kejaksaan Dalam Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi Indonesian doi 10 31960 ijocl v1i1 147
2. Kewenangan Dan Penyelesaian Sengketa Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (Perbandingan Indonesia Dan Korea Selatan)... doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2023.01603.7Kewenangan Dan Penyelesaian Sengketa Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Perbandingan Indonesia Dan Korea Selatan doi 10 21776 ub arenahukum 2023 01603 7
3. DOI Name 10.31949 Values. doi name values index type timestamp data hs serv 16z crossref email support... doi.org/10.31949DOI Name 10 31949 Values doi name values index type timestamp data hs serv 16z crossref email support doi 10 31949
4. IMPLEMENTASI PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG TENTANG E-COURT UNTUK MEWUJUDKAN ASAS SEDERHANA, CEPAT DAN BIAYA... doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2022.01503.2IMPLEMENTASI PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG TENTANG E COURT UNTUK MEWUJUDKAN ASAS SEDERHANA CEPAT DAN BIAYA doi 10 21776 ub arenahukum 2022 01503 2

Metadata

File size	627.14 KB
Pages	20
DMCA	Report