Investigator–Prosecutor Coordination in Indictment Drafting Under Indonesia's New Criminal Procedure Code: A Juridical Analysis at Purwakarta District Prosecutor's Office

The enactment of Indonesia's Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP 2025), effective January 2, 2026, introduces a paradigmatic shift in the coordination between investigators and public prosecutors: Article 58 mandates active coordination from the investigation stage, fundamentally departing from the sequential-passive model of the former KUHAP, while Article 70 imposes a strict seven-day deadline for indictment drafting after case files are declared complete. This study examines two interconnected questions: (1) how the legal framework governing investigator–prosecutor coordination is structured under KUHAP 2025 and related legislation; and (2) how that framework is implemented in practice at the Purwakarta District Prosecutor's Office. A normative–empirical mixed-method design was employed, integrating statutory, conceptual, and case-study approaches. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews with prosecutors and investigators at Purwakarta District Prosecutor's Office and Purwakarta Police Resort, case document analysis, and field observation. The theoretical framework combines Lawrence M. Friedman's Legal System Theory and Soerjono Soekanto's Law Enforcement Theory. Findings reveal that KUHAP 2025 delivers substantial normative advancement yet harbours three critical regulatory gaps: the absence of binding technical protocols for implementing mandatory active coordination, the lack of uniform and measurable case-file completeness standards, and no formal mechanism for resolving institutional disagreements on legal interpretation. On the ground, coordination at Purwakarta still operates under the old sequential-passive pattern despite the new law: case-file returns (P-19) remain frequent, driven primarily by absent expert testimony, insufficient factual narration in examination records, and mismatches between charged articles and legal facts. A Friedman–Soekanto diagnostic reveals simultaneous dysfunction across all three legal system components substance, structure, and legal culture with the entrenched 'waiting culture' between the police and the prosecution identified as the most resistant obstacle to reform.