107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE INDONESIANPROSECUTION SERVICE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Ersyiwo Zaimaru*
I. INTRODUCTION
Since prosecution has been realized asa fundamental component of the criminal
justice system in addition to investigation,
judgment and the execution of the judge’s
disposition, the Prosecution Service of the
Republic of Indonesia also has a pivotal roleand function in the Indonesian law
enforcement system. In other words, theIndonesian Prosecution Service is
indispensable in the Indonesian criminal
justice system.
This paper tries to describe concisely therole and function of Indonesian prosecutors
in the criminal justice system.
II. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
AND ROLE OF THE INDONESIANPROSECUTION SERVICE
A. Position within the National
Organizational Structure and Its
Independence and Neutrality
1. Position
The Prosecution Service of the Republicof Indonesia is a government institution,
which is separated from the Ministry ofJustice and other criminal agencies. Thisinstitution has the main duty to executethe state power in the field of prosecution
and other duties based upon theregulations and laws and to have a sharein exercising a part of the general duty of
government and the development in thefield of law.
* Head of Sub Division for Monitoring, Division of
Cooperation for Foreign Legal Affairs, Bureau of
Law and Public Relations, Attorney General’s
Office, Indonesia.

The Prosecution Service (Kejaksaan) is
composed of one Attorney General’s Office,27 the High Prosecution Offices and 296
District Prosecution Offices. The Attorney
General Office is located in the capital of
the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, and its
territorial jurisdiction covers the territoryof the Republic of Indonesia. The High
Prosecution Office covers the territory of
the province and the District Prosecution
Office covers the territory of the district or
the respective municipality and or an
administrative city. It is clear that the
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’s O f f i c e i s t h eheadquarters of the Indonesian
prosecution service.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 7,paragraph (1) of Act No. 5/1991, a branchof the District Prosecution Office can beformed by the decree of Attorney General
after the State Minister of Administrative
Reform has given his approval thereto.
This means that a branch of the District
Prosecution Office is the lowest level in theorganizational structure of the Indonesian
Prosecution Service.
The Indonesian Prosecution Service
itself is led by the Attorney General who isappointed and dismissed by andresponsible to the President of the Republicof Indonesia. The Attorney General is thesupreme leader in and responsible for theProsecution Service who controls over the
execution of the duties and authority of theservice. In conducting this daily job, he isassisted by one Vice Attorney General andsix Deputy Attorney Generals.
The Attorney General and the Vice
Attorney General constitute a unity ofleadership components. All Deputy
Attorney Generals are the components

201

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
which support the leadership. As statedin Article 4 of the Presidential Decree No.
55/1991, the structure of the Indonesian
Prosecution Service consists of:(1) Attorney General;(2) Vice Attorney General(3) Deputy Attorney General for
Advancement;(4) Deputy Attorney General forIntelligence Affairs;(5) Deputy Attorney General for
General Crimes;(6) Deputy Attorney General for Special
Crimes;(7) Deputy Attorney General for Civil
and Administrative Affairs;(8) Deputy Attorney General for
Supervision;(9) Centres;(10) Prosecution Offices at regional level
which consists of:a. High Prosecution Offices, andb. District Prosecution Offices.
In addition, the Indonesian Attorney
General has the level as same as a State
Minister. Therefore, the Attorney General
as well as the commander-in-chief of theIndonesian Armed Forces and the Ministerof Justice is a member of the Cabinet whichis led directly by the President.
In the Indonesian organizational
structure of national government, thePresident and Vice President are electedby all members of the People’s Consultative
Assembly (MPR), which is the highest
constitutional body. Under the 1945
Constitution, the MPR convenes at least
once every five years to elect the President
and Vice President and to adopt the broad
outlines of state policy, which provide aframework for government policy
directions. This body consists of all 500
members of the House of Representatives(Parliament) and 500 additional members
appointed by the government. The DPR(Parliament) itself meets regularly anddebates legislation submitted to it by thegovernment.
202

2. Independence and Neutrality
In order for one to be appointed as a
Public Prosecutor, according to Article 9 of
Act No. 5/1991 on Prosecution Service of
the Republic of Indonesia, inter alia, onemust be a civil servant, hold a university
degree in law, and pass the examination of
the education and training for the skill
profession of Public Prosecutor. Due to its
status of being a civil servant, therefore
undoubtedly, every Indonesian publicprosecutor is fully controlled by his/hersuperiors. It can be seen in the actual
practice of prosecution of offenders that apublic prosecutor in charge, before
submitting his/her requisite charges,
should first ask the size of charges to thehead of the District Prosecution Office fora case at the district level or the head of
the High Prosecution Office for a provincial
level case and the Attorney General for anational level case. In other words, every
Indonesian public prosecutor is fully
controled by his/her superiors, which isreferred to in Article 8, paragraph (2) inthe following words:
In instituting prosecution the Public
Prosecutor shall act for and on behalfof the state and be responsible tohierarchical channel.
As mentioned above, an Indonesianpublic prosecutor is a government official.
In handling criminal cases, the executionof prosecution must be based upon the law
and must always observe the sense ofjustice in existence with the society by
paying attention to the government policy.
The Indonesian public prosecutor shall act
as the government and the state officials
in the execution of prosecution. This meansthat there is no neutrality for publicprosecutor because the government
interest must be kept in the prosecution
against the offenders. In addition, theIndonesian public prosecutor shall act asa State Attorney when there are civil andadministrative actions against the stateand government of the Republic of

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
Indonesia. It can be said that every
Indonesian public prosecutor must standby their government and their state.
B. Appointment and Training of
Public Prosecutors and the
Guarantee of Their Status
1. Appointment
As mentioned before that is stipulated
in Article 9 of the Act No. 5/1991, in orderfor one to be appointed a public prosecutor,
he shall have to fulfill the following
requirements:(1) be an Indonesian Citizen;(2) be pious to the One Almighty God;(3) b e l o y a l t o P a n c a s i l a ( s t a t ephilosophy) and the 1945
Constitution;(4) not be an ex-member of the banned
I n d o n e s i a C o m m u n i s t P a r t y,
including the mass organizations
thereof or not be a person directly
involved in the “CounterRevolutionary Movement of
September 30th/Indonesia
Communist Party” or other banned
organizations;(5) be a civil servant;(6) hold a university degree in law;(7) be at least 25 years of age;(8) be authoritative, honest, just and not
behave disgracefully; and(9) pass the examination of the educationand training for the skill professionof Public Prosecutor.
Those requirements above are verified
in a selection process that is conducted by
the Bureau of Personnel Affairs of the
Attorney General’s Office.
Prosecution service has recruited legal
personnel within the prosecution service.
They must be law school graduates andpass the prosecutor pre-service training
organized by the training center in Jakarta.
Every year, the training center produces
about 200 new public prosecutors.

Recently, there are about 5,000 publicprosecutors, who serve prosecution. That
number also includes civil andadministrative law enforcement.
2. Training and the Guarantee of
Public Prosecutors Status
The Centre for Education and Training
has the duty to execute the education andtraining in the environment of theIndonesian Prosecution Service by virtueof law and regulation and the policy
determined by the Attorney General. This
centre is a component in support of the duty
and function of the prosecution service,while is under and directly responsible to
the Attorney General.
Education and training programs for
personnel of the prosecution service thatis organized by the centre consists of PreService and In-Service programs that canbe seen in Table 1.
In addition to the information of Table
1, in-service programs consist of training
programs on general administrative,
structural, functional and technicaleducation, and training for publicprosecution candidates is a kind offunctional training program. This technicaleducation and training program may
consist of training of Intellectual Property
Rights, law enforcement in criminal cases,
and law enforcement in civil andadministrative cases, intelligence activities,
etc. This kind of training can be an
appropriate solution to overcome theproblems of insufficient qualified publicprosecutors dealing with new crimes which
seem more sophisticated and organized.
The goal of functional education andtraining programs is strengthening theskills and professional capacities of publicprosecutors as required by government
regulation. Furthermore, the technicalprograms will give a better opportunity for
any qualified public prosecutor andadministrative personnel to acquire the203

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Table 1KINDS OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Kind of Education and Training
ProgramPre-service Training
General Administrative
Structurala. Administrative Staff & Leader First
Level
b. Middle Level
c. High Level
Functional Training (Non Strata)
Technical Training

Participant
Candidate for Civil Servant in
Prosecution Service– Official Echelons V & IV
– Functional Official
Official Echelon III
Official Echelon II
Official Echelon I
Functional Official
Structural & Functional Officials

Source: Rasmin Saleh, “The Education and Training of Indonesia Public Prosecution
Service”, unpublished, p. 18.
knowledge and technical skills in order toimprove the objectiveness and efficiency incarrying out their duties, especially for new
problems faced by Prosecution Service of
the Republic of Indonesia.
Participation for every program is basedon assignment. A selection team considers
what is expected of those participants after
they finish their training, so that they can
improve their ability to achieve a better
career position and a brighter future.
Therefore, the education and training
programs are the strategic way to get thecapable and skillful public prosecutors in
handling cases. It can be noted theguarantee of having a bright future is
attending the series arranged programs.
C. Professional Ethics of Indonesian
Prosecutors
The ideal figure of an Indonesian publicprosecutor is a person who holds or reflects
the values of the Prosecution Service
maxims called Satya, Adhy and Wicaksana(Integrity, Maturity and Wisdom). Thismaxim which is called Tri Krama Adhyaksa
or Indonesian Prosecution Service doctrine,
was stipulated by the Attorney General’s

204

Decree No. KEP-030/JA/3/1988 on March
23, 1988.
Pursuant to Article 8, paragraph (4)of Act No. 5/1991, in executing its duty andauthority, the prosecution service shallalways act by virtue of the law and with
due observance of the norms of religion,
good manners and morality, and shall also
be obligated to delve into the living valuesof humanity, law and justice in the society.
Moreover, public prosecutors shall institutea prosecution on the belief that theirprosecution is based upon sufficient legalmeans of proof. According to Article 184,
paragraph (1) of Act No. 8/1981, legalmeans of proof shall be the testimony of
witnesses, testimony of the experts,
documents, the indication, and thetestimony of the accused.
As stated in Article 11, paragraph (1) of
Act No. 5/1991, unless determinedotherwise by virtue of the law, theIndonesian public prosecutor may notconcurrently become a businessman or alegal adviser or do another job which can
influence the dignity of his/her office. The
violation of this statement, according to
Article 13, paragraph (1), section c, shall

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
result in the public prosecutor being
dishonourably dismissed from his/her
office. The other regulations related to theprofessional ethics of Indonesian
Prosecutors can be found in Code of Civil
Servant Ethics and several acts concerning
the duty, authority and function of publicprosecutors in the Indonesian justicesystem.
III. INVESTIGATION
A. Investigative Authority andMethodology
Arcitle 6, paragraph (1) of Act No. 8/1981
on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) statesthat an investigator shall be:(1) an official of the state police of the
Republic of Indonesia; and(2) a certain official of the civil service
who is granted special authority bylaw.
Refering to this statement, in practice,
the police official is an investigator for
general crimes such as murder, theft androbbery.
The public prosecutor is also authorized
to be the investigator for special crimes
such as the corruption cases (Act No. 3/
1971 on Eradication of Corruption
Offences). It is sanctioned by Article 284,
paragraph (2) of Act on Criminal
Procedure, which states:... all cases shall be subject to theprovision of this Act, with temporary
exception for special provisions on
criminal procedure as refered to incertain acts, until they are amended
and or are declared to no longer be ineffect.
Another regulation which sanctions thatstatement above, is Article 17 ofGovernment Regulation No. 27/1983,
which mentions that public prosecutors
and certain officials have authority as
investigators of special crimes. It means
there are several special investigators

besides public prosecutors in theIndonesian investigation system, inter alia,
naval officers for Fishery and Exclusive
Economic Zone offences; and civil servantsof Customs and Excise, Tax Division,
Forestry Officer, etc.
An investigator as regulated in Article
7, paragraph (1) of Act No. 8/1981 shall becompetent, inter alia, to carry out arrest,
detention, search and seizure of documents;
to summon a person to be heard or
examined as a suspect or a witness; to takeother responsible acts in accordance withlaw. In this regard, the investigator shallprepare minutes of the execution of acts
and then shall deliver the dossier of caseto the public prosecutor. The delivery ofthe dossier shall be accomplished as follows[Article 8, paragraph (3) of Act No. 8/1981]:(1) At the first stage, the investigator
shall deliver only the dossier of case.
(2) Where the investigation is deemed tohave been completed, the investigator
shall cede responsibility for thesuspect and the physical evidence tothe public prosecutor.
However, there is not a strict sanction
against the investigator who delivers thedossier of a case late and never completes
the returned case. In practice, a publicprosecutor in charge will ask thatinvestigator ’s superior to order thecompletion of the case as soon as possible.
B. Instruction and Supervision of
the Police, and the Cooperation
between the Public Prosecutor
and the Police
As we know, the role of the publicprosecutor can be seen clearly from theacceptance of the case dossier from thepolice officer. Then, the public prosecutor
will compose the results of the criminal
investigation to be the criminal prosecution
against the defendant. In the Indonesiancriminal justice system, a public prosecutor
within seven days shall be obligated to205

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
inform the investigator in charge whether
the results are complete or incomplete.
Where the results are evidently incomplete,
the public prosecutor shall send the dossierback to the investigator accompanied by an
instruction on what must be done to makeit complete. Then, within 14 days after
receiving the dossier, the investigator shallbe obligated to return the dossier to the
public prosecutor.
As mentioned before, there is no a strict
sanction against the investigators whoneglect their obligation to complete the casewithin the mentioned period. In that case,a good informal or personal relationshipbetween the public prosecutor and theinvestigator (the State Police Officer) canbe seen on the results of investigation.
Conversely, the public prosecutor in charge
will ask his/her superior or the head of theDistrict Prosecution Office to contact theinvestigator ’s superior to fulfill his
obligation soon. Alternately, the publicprosecutor will never give or approve theextension of further detention in theinvestigation period. It can be deemed as
an effective way for public prosecutors tosupervise what the investigators have donetill the end of the detention period.
Although the public prosecutor is able
to return the incomplete dossier to theinvestigator accompanied by the
instruction, however, it can not be said thatthe public prosecutor has supervised thestate police officer in conducting theinvestigation vertically. Accordingly, boththe public prosecutor and the police officer
together have prepared a successful
investigation. It must be noted a successful
investigation shall determine the nextstage of law enforcement results.
C. Role of Public Prosecutors inArresting and Detaining theSuspect
Pursuant to Article 109, paragraph (1)of the Act on Criminal Procedure, where
an investigator has begun the investigation

206of an event, which constitutes an offence,
the investigator shall inform the publicprosecutor of this fact. That information
includes the arrest and detention of thesuspect, which have been conducted by theinvestigator.
The investigator on a person who isstrongly presumed to have committed an
offense based on sufficient preliminary
evidence shall issue an arrest warrant.
That arrest can be made for at most one
day, and a person suspected of having
committed a misdemeanor shall not be
arrested except when without valid reasons
he has failed two consecutive times tocomply with valid summons (Articles 17 to
19 of Act No. 8/1981).
Furthermore, for the purposes ofinvestigation as well as prosecution andtrial proceedings, the investigator insteadof the public prosecutor and the judge attrial, has the authority to a detain a suspect
who is strongly presumed to havecommitted an offence based on sufficientevidence. It is applied on cases where there
are circumstances which give rise toconcern that the suspect will escape,damage or destroy physical evidence and/or repeat the offence. According to Article
24, paragraph (1) of the Act on Criminal
Procedure, a warrant of detention issued
by an investigator shall only be valid forat most 20 days. It may be extended by acompetent public prosecutor for at most 40
days, if an investigation has not been
completed yet. After the said 60-day period,
the investigator must release that suspectfrom detention for the sake of law.
The role of the public prosecutor inarresting and detaining a suspect which
are conducted by the police or aninvestigator, is merely to supervise thevalidity of the investigator’s activities
concerning investigation. In fact, theinvestigators shall be responsible
themselves for whatever they have done.
In addition, a suspect shall have the rightto demand compensation for the harm of

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
having been arrested, detained or otheracts, without reason founded on law or due
to a mistake with regard to his identity or
to the applicable law (see Article 95,
paragraph (1) of Act No. 8/1981).
IV. INDICTMENT
A. Authorized Agency to Indict andthe Methodology
As mentioned before, the Prosecution
Service of the Republic of Indonesia is asole agency which shall execute the state
powers in the field of prosecution. Itmeans, there is no private prosecution in
the Indonesian criminal justice system. In
addition, the Prosecution Service shallhave the authority to carry out theprosecution of anyone who is accused ofcommitting an offence within a publicprosecutor’s jurisdiction by bringing thecase before a competent court to adjudicate
accompanied by a bill of indictment.
After the public prosecutor has received
or accepted the returned and complete
dossier case from the investigator, he shallpromptly determine whether or not thedossier meets the requirements to bebrought before a competent court. Where
he has the opinion that a prosecution may
be conducted from the results ofinvestigation, he shall prepare as soon as
possible a bill of indictment. Pursuant to
Article 141 of the Act on Criminal
Procedure, a public prosecutor may effectthe joinder of cases and cover them in one
bill of indictment, if at the same time oralmost simultaneously he receives several
dossiers of cases on:(1) several offences committed by thesame person and the interest of theexamination does not pose an
obstacle to joinder;(2) s e v e r a l j o i n d e r s w h i c h a r einterrelated one with the other; or(3) several offences which are notinterrelated but which do have someconnection one another, such that thejoinder is necessary for purposes of
examination.
On other hand, where a publicprosecutor receives a case dossiercontaining several offences committed byseveral suspects, he may conduct a
prosecution against each of the defendant
separately. Therefore, a public prosecutor
has the authority to decide freely whethera case will be separated or not.
B. Degree of Certainty Regarding
Guilt Required to Indict a
Suspect
In Indonesian criminal procedure, there
are three kinds of examination procedures,i.e.:(1) Ordinary,(2) Summary, and(3) Express, which consists of proceduresfor examination of minor offences andprocedures for traffic violation cases.
The ordinary examination procedures
are regulated in Articles 152 to 202 of Act
No. 8/1981 on criminal procedure, Articles
203 to 204 for summary procedure, Articles
205 to 210 for minor offences, and Articles
211 to 216 for the examination proceduresof traffic violation cases.
Ordinary procedure is the main legal
procedure that is implemented in every
competent court. In this procedure, after
receiving the case dossier, which must be
accompanied by a Bill of Indictment fromthe public prosecutor, the presiding judge
at the court shall determine the trial date.
Moreover, the presiding judge shall alsoorder the public prosecutor to summon theaccused and witnesses to attend the trial.
There is a specialty among thoseexamination procedures above where apublic prosecutor shall never be involved
directly in the examination, i.e., the express
procedures. In this procedure, as

207

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
mentioned in Article 205, paragraph (2) of
Act No. 8/1981, the investigator on behalfof public prosecutor shall within three days
after completion of the date minutes of theexamination, present the accused together
with the physical evidence, witnesses,
experts and/or interpreters before thecourt. It is a little bit different to thesummary procedure in that the authorized
official whose obligation is to present theaccused together with the required
witnesses, experts, experts, interpretersand physical evidence, is a publicprosecutor. It is similar to the ordinary
procedure in that the public prosecutor ismore responsible for presenting theaccused required witnesses, experts andinterpreters before a competent court.
The criteria to decide whether a criminalcase shall be examined in summary
procedure, is that a case does not fall under
the provisions of Minor Offences and forwhich the evidence and application of law,and according to the public prosecutor in
charge, is simple and straightforward.
Cases with a penalty of at most threemonths’ imprisonment or confinement anda fine of not more than 7500 rupiahs (about
300 yen) shall be examined in express
procedures.
In preparing a bill of indictment, whichshall be dated and signed by the publicprosecutor in charge, it shall contain(Article 143 of Act No. 8/1981):(1) the full name, place of birth, age ordate of birth, gender, nationality,
address, religion and occupation of
the suspect; and(2) an accurate, clear and complete
explanation of the offence of whichaccusation is made, stating the timeand place where the offence wascommitted.
A bill of indictment which does notsatisfy the provision above shall be void forthe sake of law.

208

C. Exercise of Discretion in
Prosecution
A public prosecutor may not prosecutean accused when he has found threetechnical circumstances and one factor ofpolitical reason (Cf. Andi Hamzah and RM.
Surachman, “The Role a Public
Prosecutor”, paper for Indonesian-Japan
joint seminar held in Jakarta on January
2-24, 1992, pp. 30-33), i.e.:(1) the fact has insufficient evidence;(2) the fact does not constitute an offence;(3) it is for the interest of law; and(4) political reason.
Whenever the public prosecutor decides
to cease or to suspend the prosecution
because of insufficient evidence or it has
become clear that said event did notconstitute an offence or the case has beenclosed in the interest of law, the publicprosecutor shall set this forth in a written
decision. According to Article 140,
paragraph (2) subparagraph b of Act No.
8/1981, the content of said written decision
shall be made known to the suspect and if
he is detained, that suspect should be
released immediately. Moreover, the copiesof the written decision must be sent to thesuspect or his family or legal counsel,
official of the state house of detention, theinvestigator and the judge. If thereafter
new circumstances should provide
sufficient evidence, the public prosecutor
may conduct a prosecution against thesuspect.
In addition, pursuant to Article 183 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge shallnot impose a penalty upon a person except
when there are at least two legal means of
proof enabling him to come to theconviction that an offence has truly
occurred and that the accused is guilty ofcommitting it. Therefore, if there are twoamong five legal means of proofs, normally,
the public prosecutor shall prosecute theaccused before a competent court.
Furthermore, the interest of law as107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
mentioned above, including lapse of time,
double jeopardy or nebis in idem, and thedeath of the accused, shall be consideredwhen determining whether or not toprosecute the accused.
Prior to 1961, every public prosecutor inIndonesia was allowed by the law to drop
the case even though there was sufficientevidence to warrant a conviction. Then,
this power was abolished in 1961.
However, since that time only the Attorney
General has been allowed to drop a casefor political reasons or for the interest oflaw. Hence, a public prosecutor who wishes
to utilize this power has to request the
Attorney General to determine it, which is,unfortunately, rarely exercised.
Although the authority to exercise thediscretionary power is not stipulated
explicitly in articles of the Act Number 8/1981 (KUHAP), the elucidation of Article
77 KUHAP infers this power which is called
the opportunity principle. Fortunately, thisprinciple has been endorsed by Article 32,
paragraph (4) of Act No. 5/1991 on
Prosecution Service of the Republic ofIndonesia.
D. Plea Bargaining
In the Indonesian criminal justicesystem, plea bargaining has never been
known clearly. To decide whether anaccused is guilty or not, is the authority of
the judges at trial. However the judges attrial shall impose a proper punishment
based on sufficient legal means of proof,
namely at least two legal means of proof,
which convincingly establish that theaccused has truly committed an offence.
A public prosecutor in instituting theprosecution, of course, will first beconcerned about the sufficiency of theevidence to establish a prima facie case orthat the evidence that would warrant
conviction. There are severals factors
usually taken into consideration before
deciding to prosecute such as the gravity
and circumstances of the offence, and thepersonal factors related to the alleged
offender, inter alia, the character, the age,
any mental illness or stress affecting theoffender and the relationship of the victim
to the offender. After a public prosecutor
has gathered the prima facie evidence, hedecides whether to prosecute or not.
V. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
A. Proof of Criminal Facts
As stated previously, there are five legalmeans of proof in Indonesian criminal
procedure, i.e., the testimony of witnesses,
the testimony of experts, documents,
indication, and the testimony of theaccused [Article 184, paragraph (1) of Act
No. 8/1981]. The testimony of a witness iswhat the witness has stated at trial, which
is similar to the testimony of the expert andthe accused, i.e., what the expert and theaccused have stated at trial. A document
as a legal means of proof should be madeunder an oath of office or strengthened byan oath. An indication is an act, event or
circumstance which because of its
consistency whether between one and theother or with the offence itself, signifies
that the offence has occurred and who theperpetuator is (see Articles 184 to 189 of
Act No. 8/1981).
In addition, the indication as a legalmeans of proof shall only be obtained fromthe testimony of the witnesses, thedocument and the testimony of the accused.
The evidentiary strength of the indication
is evaluated by the judges at trial wisely
and prudently after those judges haveaccurately and carefully conducted an
examination on the basis of theirconscience. In practice, every publicprosecutor always tries to have theindication in proving the accused guilty. In
other words, every public prosecutor
always tries to obtain three or more legalmeans of proof in proving the guilt of theaccused.

209

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
However, if the court is of the opinion
that from the results of examination attrial, the guilty of the accused has not beenlegally and convincingly proven, theaccused shall be declared acquitted.
Moreover, if the court is of the opinion thatthe act of the accused has been proven but
such act does not constitute an offence, allcharges against the accused shall bedismissed. In these cases, if the publicprosecutor is not satisfied with the opinionof the court (i.e., dismissal or acquittal), hemay appeal to the competent High Court.
Furthermore, he may request for a
cassation to the Supreme Court, if he is notsatisfied with the High Court decisionaffirming the District Court decision.
According the explanation above, thecompetent District Court may make threekinds of decision upon the accused, i.e.:(1) Punishment;(2) Acquittal;(3) Dismissal of all charges against theaccused.
B. Cooperation for Speedy Trial
In pursuit of Article 4, paragraph (2) ofthe Act on the Basic of Judicial Power, thejudicial administration shall be conductedsimply, speedily and economically. These
principles must fulfill the expectation of all
seekers of justice. As we realized, they do
not need a complicated examination
procedure that may take a long time and,sometimes, it should be continued by an
heir.
Cooperation among the investigator,
public prosecutor and the judges at trial
and also each superior, in practice, has spedup the examination process. Moreover, therole of the accused in showing the required
evidence to the competent official of the law
enforcement agencies, is also deemed
another way for a speedy trial.

C. Securing Appropriate Sentence
In practice, there are quite many
sentences passed by judges which havebeen considered not in accordance with thesense of justice in Indonesian society. The
ordinary people consider those sentences
so lenient that they might lead to anincrease in crime, even though suchargument has not been proven. Moreover,people do not want to understand why it
has occurred in the Indonesian law
enforcement system.
Securing an appropriate sentence is not
only conducted by the judges at trial but
also by the public prosecutor, investigatorand other officials of criminal agencies. An
appropriate sentence should be made on
an appropriate request of charges against
the defendant, and it is based on effective
investigationary results. In other words,
an inappropriate sentence is merely causedby human errors which are made by thoselaw enforcement officials. Therefore,
providing the proper training for those
officials is necessary to reduce humanerrors in sentencing.
D. Supervision over the Fair
Application of Law
Similar to the above-described, people
often ask judges why they do not performthe same justice in sentencing offenders
committing the same crime under similar
circumstances. According to Justice
Soerjono (see paper in Indonesia-Japan
Joint Seminar, Jakarta, January 20-24,
1992, pp. 6-8), there are several factors
which might influence the decision ofjudges in passing sentences, i.e.:(1) Nature of Crime;(2) Defendant’s Character;(3) Community response toward crime;and(4) Chance.
Considering that judges, publicprosecutors, investigators and other law
enforcement officials are government

210

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
officials who should obey governmental
disciplinary regulations, the role of theirrespective superiors in supervising over thefair application of law is really important.
Public supervision that is carried out by
the Indonesian people through the mass
media is deemed another instrument tocontrol the fair application of the law.
Moreover, the request for appeal andcassation is a pivotal instrument tosupervise fairness, which is the right of the
public prosecutor and/or the defendant.
In conducting trial proceedings, thepublic prosecutor in charge shall beobligated to present the defendant,
witnesses, experts and all evidence
concerning the defendant who is accusedof having committed a crime. If in fact theaccused or the witnesses were legally
summoned but failed to be present at trial,
the examination of the case can not be
continued and the head judge shall ordersaid person to be summoned once again for
the next trial session. Usually, delay in thetrial proceedings may be caused by:(1) The required witnesses not having
received the summons.
(2) A witness’ intent to arrive at the trial
on the second summons. Usually, it
is carried out if the defendant is stillin the detention and the witness isthe victim of the defendant.
VI. EXECUTION OF PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to Article 270 of the Act on
Criminal Procedure, which is also signified
by Act No. 5/1991 on Prosecution Serviceof the Republic of Indonesia, the executionof punishment which has become final andbinding shall be carried out by the publicprosecutor. For this purpose, a copy of theexecution of punishment shall be sent to
the public prosecutor by the clerk. Then,the public prosecutor shall send, a copy ofthe minutes on the execution of thepunishment signed by himself, by the headof the correction agency and by theconvicted person, to the court which

decided the case in the first instance andthe clerk shall record it in the register ofsupervision and observation.
For the purpose of supervision andobservation, in every court there must be
a judge who is given the special duty ofassisting the head in carrying out thesupervision and observation with regard to
the punishment of depriving liberty.
Therefore, it is clear that the executor ofpunishment is the public prosecutor which
is different in civil law enforcement. The
executor of civil law is the clerk of the court.
VII. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS’INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
Public prosecutors are also involved in
the activities of, inter alia, in the promotionof legal public awareness, precaution as ameasure in securing law enforcement
policy, precaution as a measure of securityof the printed matter circulation, thesupervision of mysticism which can
endanger the society and the state, theprevention of misuse and/or blasphemy ofreligion and the research and developmentof law and administrative matters.
Additionally, public prosecutors represent
the state or government inside as well as
outside the courts in regards to national
justice policy.
Coping with the public prosecutor’s
involvement in national justice policy, theProsecution Service has five missions, i.e.:(1) To secure and defend Pancasila as theIndonesian philosophy against any
attempts which can shake thecoexistence of the society, nation andstate.
(2) Must be capable of giving shape tothe legal security, rule of law, justiceand truth based upon the law and ofobserving the norms of religion, goodmanners and morality; and also be
obligated to delve into the living
values of humanity, law and justicein the society;211

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53(3) Must be capable of being fully
involved in the development process,inter alia, having a share in thecreation of conditions andinfrastructure which support andsecure the implementation ofdevelopment in order to give shape
to the just and prosperous society
based upon Pancasila;(4) Safeguarding and enforcing theauthority of the government andstate of the Republic of Indonesia;and(5) To protect the interest of the people
through law enforcement.
Implementation of those missions are
conducted by the Attorney General, who is
assisted by one Vice-Attorney General andsix Deputy Attorneys General. It is clearthat Indonesian public prosecutors are
involved not only in law enforcement but
also in the implementation of the national
development programs. The involvementof the Attorney General, heads of the High
Prosecution Offices and heads of theDistrict Prosecution Offices related to eachlevel, as the chiefs of the Committee ofSupervision for General Elections, is a good
example of this matter.

212

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
APPENDIX ATOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
IN THE INDONESIAN PROSECUTION SERVICE(August 18, 1997)
RegionThe Attorney General Office (Headquarters)
Aceh Special Region
North Sumatera
West Sumatera
Riau
Jambi
South Sumatera
Bengkulu
Lampung
Jakarta District CapitalWest Java
Central Java
Yogyakarta Special Region
East Java
Wesk Kalimantan
Central Kalimantan
South Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
North Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
South East Sulawesi
South Sulawesi
Bali
West Nusa Tenggara
East Nusa Tenggara
MalukuIrian Jaya
East Timor
Secondment
Grand Total

Prosecutor
423
124
336
131
132
94
187
62
141
212
551
428
99
589
104
88
136
122
101
107
56
289
128
82
107
131
87
73
8
5,128

Other Staff
1,709
312
619
366
282
185
380
123
246
532
1,245
1,334
461
1,077
203
159
199
118
203
167
141
568
308
208
257
234
179
174
0
11,989

Total
2,132
436
755
497
414
279
567
185
387
744
1,796
1,762
560
1,666
307
247
335
240
304
274
197
857
436
290
364
365
266
247
8
17,117

Source: Bureau of Personnel Affairs, Office of the Attorney General.

213

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIX B
NUMBER OF GENERAL CRIME CASESACCEPTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE(April 1996 – March 1997)
DisposalHigh Prosecuting
OfficeBacklogof 1996

Receipt
in 1997

Total in1997

Aceh Special Region
North Sumatera
West Sumatera
Riau
Jambi
South Sumatera
Bengkulu
LampungWest Kalimantan
Central Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
South Kalimantan
West Java
Jakarta District Capital
Central Java
Yogyakarta Special Region
East Java
North Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
South East Sulawesi
South Sulawesi
Bali
West Nusa Tenggara
East Nusa Tenggara
MalukuIrian Jaya
East Timor
Total

545
2,074
560
285
295
1,340
499
697
537
148
313
1,376
4,061
9,056
1,307
125
2,109
2,800
531
524
1,492
336
918
777
1,047
170
123
34,045

281
5,550
1,310
1,539
850
3,632
724
1,815
1,406
815
2,154
1,884
9,621
5,633
6,162
940
1,635
1,220
845
871
3,506
1,559
923
1,130
1,194
1,001
371
59,571

1,826
7,624
1,870
1,824
1,145
4,972
1,223
2,512
1,943
963
2,467
3,260
13,682
14,689
7,469
1,065
3,744
4,020
1,376
1,395
4,998
1,895
1,841
1,907
2,241
1,171
494
93,616

Stopping
Investigation
Stopped Become Pending Appro- InapproInvestiga- Cases
in 1997 priate
priate
tion
81
1,264
481
76
5
130
4,832
2,662
122
8
12
1,179
679
9
3
13
1,497
314
9
4
13
832
300
13
–
8
3,594
1,370
6
2
4
659
560
–
4
2
1,723
787
2
–
5
1,300
638
4
1
3
831
129
1
2
13
2,198
256
3
10
44
1,829
1,387
44
–
25
9,560
4,097
19
6
3
5,356
9,330
–
3
32
6,166
1,271
29
3
1
925
139
–
1
15
1,548
2,181
3
12
10
1,050
2,960
2
8
20
798
558
17
3
–
1,027
368
–
–
36
3,223
1,739
1
35
30
1,444
421
30
–
55
889
897
11
44
14
1,032
861
2
12
54
1,010
1,177
14
40
23
974
174
17
6
9
293
192
5
4
655
57,033 35,928
439
216

Source: Office of the Deputy Attorney General for General Crime.

214

SUPREME
COURT

COORDINATINGMINISTERSAPPENDIX CDEPARTMENTSMINISTERS OF
PORTFOLIOSGOVERNOR OFBANK INDONESIAHOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVESATTORNEY
GENERALPRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENTMINISTERS OF
STATE

SUPREME ADVISORYCOUNCILPEOPLE’S CONSULTATIVEASSEMBLYORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTCOMMANDER-INCHIEF OF THE
ARMED FORCESSTATE AUDIT
BODY

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

215

216

LEGAL ANDPUBLIC RELATIONSBUREAUPUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE

HIGH/PROVINCIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTIONLAW INFORMATIONCENTRE

DIRECTORATE FORINTELLIGENCE PRODUCTAND EQUIPMENTFINANCE
BUREAURESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

DIRECTORATE FORSUBVERSION CRIMESDIRECTORATE FOR
OTHER GENERALCRIMES

DIRECTORATE FOR
SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL AFFAIRSPERSONNEL
BUREAUEDUCATION AND
TRAINING CENTRE

DIRECTORATE FOR
CORRUPTION CRIMESDIRECTORATE FORCRIMES AGAINSTLIFE AND PROPERTYDIRECTORATE FORECONOMIC AND
FINANCE AFFAIRSGENERAL
BUREAUEQUIPMENTBUREAUDIRECTORATE FORECONOMIC CRIMESSECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G. FOR
SPECIAL CRIMESDIRECTORATE FOR CRIMESAGAINST THE STATE AND
PUBLIC OFFICERSECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G.
FOR GENERAL CRIMEINTELLIGENCEOPERATION CENTRE

DIRECTORATE FORREHABILITATION AND
PROTECTION OF
CIVIL RIGHTSDIRECTORATE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE CASESDIRECTORATE FOR
CIVIL CASES

SECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G. FOR
CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVEAFFAIRSSTAFF OF SPECIALISTS/Expertise

DIRECTORATE FOR
POLITICAL AFFAIRSSECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G.
FOR INTELLIGENCE
AFFAIRSSTAFF OF THE A.G.

ATTONEY GENERAL (A.G.)
VICE ATTORNEY GENERALORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICEPLANNING
BUREAUSECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G.
FOR ADVANCEMENTAPPENDIX DLEGAL INFORMATIONAND CRIMINALSTATISTICS CENTRE

INSPECTION FOR SPECIAL
CASES CIVIL CASES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CASESINSPECTOR FOR
GENERAL CRIMESINSPECTORFOR INTELLIGENCE

INSPECTION FOR IMAGE
EQUIPMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTINSPECTOR FORPERSONNEL AND
GENERAL TASKSECRETARIAT

DEPUTY A.G.
FOR SUPERVISIONRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53

p

e

a

l
30
Head ofCompetentHigh Court

50
Chief Justice of
the Supreme
Court

Total maximum length of detention period

Justice of the Supreme
Court (art. 28)

Cassation (Second Appeal)

Presiding Judge at High
Court (art. 27)

p

30

Presiding Judge at
District Court (art. 26)

A

Head ofCompetent
District Court

20

Public Prosecutor(art. 25)
Head ofCompetent
District Court

PublicProsecutor

By

60

60

60

30

40

Maximum(days)

Extension

20

I n s t a n c e

ValidMaximum(days)

Investigator (art. 24)

F i r s t

Detention Warrant
Issued by

410

110

90

90

30 + 30

30 + 30

Extreme Exceptional Extension

Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court

Justice of the Supreme Court

Head of Competent High Court 30 + 30

Head of Competent District 30 + 30
Court

50

Maximum(days)

Head of Competent District 30 + 30
Court

By

Exceptional Extension (art. 29)

60

Total
(days)

DETENTION PERIOD ACCORDING TO ACT NO. 8/1981 ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

APPENDIX E

700

170

150

150

110

120

Total

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

217