Abstract

This research examines the juridical implications of Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office, which stipulates that any legal action against prosecutors such as summons, detention, search, and interrogation must be approved by the Attorney General. While the provision was originally intended to safeguard institutional independence, its application has raised serious concerns regarding the erosion of the equality before the law principle and the emergence of internal impunity mechanisms. Using a normative juridical approach combined with statutory, conceptual, and case study methods, this study analyses the extent to which Article 8(5) contradicts the principles of a democratic rule of law, particularly due process of law, equality before the law, and institutional accountability. Several high-profile case studies involving prosecutors such as Pinangki Sirna Malasari and Urip Tri Gunawan illustrate the operational obstacles and legal stagnation created by this hierarchical authorization requirement. The study finds that the provision creates structural barriers to justice and fosters unequal treatment under the law. Reformulating Article 8(5) into a notification mechanism rather than a permission system would ensure a more balanced relationship between institutional protection and legal accountability. Significantly, this research contributes to the development of legal thought on prosecutorial reform by offering a normative framework that strengthens equality before the law and provides policy recommendations for enhancing transparency and accountability within Indonesia’s prosecution system.

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

• Abdullah, I. (2020). Transparansi dan akuntabilitas penegakan hukum di era demokrasi digital. Jurnal Hukum dan Transformasi Sosial, 5(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.47134/jhdt.v2i3.4004
• Ahmad, R., & Rahman, L. (2023). Public accountability and institutional transparency in law enforcement agencies. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 72, 102–117. DOI https://doi.org/10.31305/ijolcaj.2023.v08.n03.028
• Asshiddiqie, J. (2006). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Tata Negara. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
• Asshiddiqie, J. (2010). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
• Asshiddiqie, J. (2015). Hukum Tata Negara dan Pilar-Pilar Demokrasi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
• Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. (2022). Naskah Akademik Revisi Undang-Undang Kejaksaan. Jakarta: Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI.
• Damanik, E. (2019). Kritik terhadap sistem izin hierarkis dalam hukum administrasi Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Administratif, 7(2), 177–191. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.58258/jiha.v7i2.8560
• Fadhilah, I. (2022). Amnesti dan ancaman impunitas oleh presiden. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum UMSU, 8(2), 101–112. DOI : https://doi.org/10.21143/umsu.no3.3126
• Firdaus, H. (2025). Strengthening legal ethics and institutional transparency in prosecution systems. Global Journal of Justice Studies, 12(2), 92–107. DOI : https://doi.org/10.59631/gjoj.v3i1.62
• Fuller, L. L. (1969). The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Hiariej, E. O. S. (2020). Hukum Pidana dan Keadilan Prosedural. Yogyakarta: FH UGM.
• Hiariej, E. O. S. (2022). Etika penegakan hukum dalam negara demokrasi. Jurnal Etika Hukum Indonesia, 4(1), 44–58. DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/jehi.10252038
• ICJR. (2024). Diskursus dan Pemetaan Pembaruan KUHAP. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
• ICW. (2021). Potret Pengawasan Internal Kejaksaan RI: Risiko Konflik Kepentingan dan Lemahnya Akuntabilitas. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch.
• Indrati, M. F. (2014). Ilmu Perundang-Undangan: Jenis, Fungsi, dan Materi Muatan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
• Indrati, M. F. (2019). Desain Legislasi dan Lembaga Pengawasan Hukum. Jakarta: Komnas HAM.
• Isra, S. (2013). Independensi Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Lembaga Penegak Hukum. Jakarta: Seknas FITRA.
• Junaidi, J., & Priandhana, A. (2023). Hukum dan hak asasi manusia dalam konstitusi Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi dan HAM, 9(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.35719/jkdh.v23i1.27
• Juwita, R., & Alamsyah, D. (2023). Kelemahan mekanisme izin penegakan hukum internal di Indonesia. Jurnal Lex Humaniora, 14(2), 99–116. DOI : https://doi.org/10.30601/humaniora.v7i2.4033.
• Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia. (2020). Pedoman Nomor 7 Tahun 2020 tentang Pemeriksaan Jaksa oleh Aparat Lain. Jakarta: JDIH Kejaksaan RI.
• Komisi Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia. (2022). Laporan Tahunan Komisi Kejaksaan RI. Jakarta: KKRI.
• Komnas HAM. (2022). Catatan HAM Tahunan: Akuntabilitas Aparat Penegak Hukum. Jakarta: Komnas HAM RI.
• Kusnadi, D. (2021). Reformasi lembaga Kejaksaan dalam menjawab tantangan modern. Jurnal Konstitusi, 18(4), 459–478. DOI : https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1842
• Lengkong, N. L., & Senewe, E. (2025). Kejahatan HAM berat dan posisi jaksa dalam UU 26/2000. Lex Privatum, 13(2), 88–103.
• Leonard, P. (2022). The limits of prosecutorial immunity: a comparative study. Law and Human Rights Review, 19(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.32734/lahrr.v1i1.16858
• Lembaga Kajian Hukum UI. (2022). Model Pengawasan Jaksa di Negara Demokratis: Studi Komparatif Eropa. Jakarta: UI Press.
• Lumbanraja, T. (2024). Revisiting the attorney general’s powers under Indonesian law. Law and Society Review Asia-Pacific, 19(1), 22–39. DOI : https://doi.org/10.30659/rlj.3.4.1061-1070
• Mahfud MD. (2009). Politik Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
• Mahfud MD. (2014). Membangun Politik Hukum Menegakkan Konstitusi. Jakarta: LP3ES.
• Maria, F. (2023). Legal oversight mechanisms for prosecutors in democratic states. Journal of Comparative Law and Justice, 28(1), 65–81. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/joclaj/ngz003
• Marzuki, L. (2010). Etika Kekuasaan dan Konstitusi. Yogyakarta: FH UGM.
• Marzuki, L. (2020). Keadilan dan Etika Profesi dalam Lembaga Negara. Jakarta: Kompas Gramedia.
• Nugroho, A., & Wicaksono, H. (2020). Strengthening external control over law enforcement agencies: lessons from comparative jurisdictions. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan Ekonomi, 12(3), 215–233. DOI : https://doi.org/10.20961/jhdpe.v12i2.94205
• Park, J., & Kim, H. (2021). Equality before the law and structural accountability: Asian perspectives. Asian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 11(3), 155–173. DOI : https://doi.org/10.20884/1.ajolp.2024.10.1.49555
• Prasetyo, A. (2022). Kekuasaan Kejaksaan dan problem akuntabilitas dalam negara hukum. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan, 3(2), 211–227. DOI : https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v3i1.12234
• Rahardjo, S. (2006). Hukum Progresif. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
• Rahardjo, S. (2020). Hukum progresif sebagai paradigma pembaruan lembaga penegak hukum. Jurnal Hukum Progresif Indonesia, 10(2), 133–148. DOI : https://doi.org/10.14710/jhp.10.2.112-126
• Rachman, F. (2023). The challenge of prosecutorial independence and accountability in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 15(2), 87–104. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/2322005815607139
• Rengku, J. D., & Senewe, E. (2025). Alternatif penyelesaian pelanggaran HAM dan peran jaksa. Lex Privatum, 13(1), 61–76. DOI : https://doi.org/10.35965/ijlf.v7i1.5427
• Saputra, R. (2025). Reformasi KUHAP dan akuntabilitas penegak hukum. PSHK Journal of Law, 5(1), 33–50.
• Setiyawan, R. (2019). Checks and balances in the Indonesian prosecutorial system. Constitutional Journal of Law and Policy, 11(2), 203–219. DOI : https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev10278
• Setiyono, B. (2018). Akuntabilitas lembaga penegak hukum: tinjauan konstitusional. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(3), 513–527.
• Tanjung, L. (2022). Structural reform and corruption prevention in the prosecutor’s office. International Review of Legal Studies, 17(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.47191/irols/v6-i8-87
• Taufiq, M. (2024). Evaluating internal impunity in prosecutorial structures. Indonesia Law Review, 14(1), 55–70. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v14n1.2
• Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2002). The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Vienna: UNODC.
• Wardani, D. (2021). Budaya impunitas dan lemahnya akuntabilitas lembaga penegak hukum. Jurnal Hukum dan Etika, 7(2), 198–209. DOI : https://doi.org/doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v5i10.981
• Widodo, A. (2024). Akuntabilitas lembaga hukum dan prinsip keterbukaan publik di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Reformasi Nasional, 13(1), 43–60. . DOI : https://doi.org/10.46257/jhr.v28i1.898
• Yasin, P. H. (2025). Legal analysis of restorative justice and impunity in law enforcement. Jurnal Hukum Syariah, 10(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.61707/cdpj7155
• Yulianti, E. (2022). Penegakan hukum terhadap jaksa: antara kepastian dan independensi. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 52(1), 1–18. DOI : https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no1.3323

How to Cite This

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Other Statistics

Copyright and Permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Kosmik Hukum agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Data Availability