Publication Search

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.

Domestic violence (DV) remains a complex legal and social problem, threatening family stability and human dignity. Although Law No. 23 of 2004 concerning the Elimination of Domestic Violence provides strict sanctions, conventional punishment methods are often considered ineffective in restoring damaged social relationships within families. This study examines the implementation of restorative justice in resolving domestic violence cases within the Bungo Police jurisdiction, from the perspective of positive law and Islamic law. This study uses an empirical legal approach and a sociological perspective, with primary data collected through interviews with investigators from the Women and Children Protection Unit (PPA), as well as secondary data from laws, police regulations, and related academic literature. The results show that restorative justice has been applied to several domestic violence cases during the investigation stage through mediation and peace agreements between the parties involved. This method helps reduce the backlog of cases, accelerates dispute resolution, and maintains family social stability. However, challenges remain, such as the possibility of re-victimization due to the imbalance of power between victims and perpetrators. From an Islamic legal perspective, restorative justice is in line with the principles of ta'zīr and maqāṣid al-sharī'ah, especially the preservation of human dignity, life and offspring. By guaranteeing the protection of victims and preventing repeated violence, restorative justice can be an additional mechanism in cases of domestic violence.

The protection of suspects’ rights during the investigation phase is a fundamental component of a fair and effective criminal justice system. This study examines the implementation of the principle of due process of law in Indonesia and its implications for safeguarding human rights in criminal investigations. Utilizing a normative legal research approach, supported by statutory and conceptual analysis, the research evaluates both the legal framework and practical application of suspects’ rights under the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the 1945 Constitution, and international human rights instruments such as the ICCPR. Findings indicate that while Indonesia has established comprehensive regulations to protect suspects, the practical implementation remains inconsistent due to structural, cultural, and procedural challenges. Deviations such as limited access to legal counsel, incomplete documentation of interrogations, and occasional coercive practices undermine adherence to due process standards. The study highlights the critical need for regulatory improvements, capacity building for investigators, and strengthened supervision mechanisms to ensure full protection of suspects’ rights. Enhancing the conformity of investigative practices with due process principles is essential not only for safeguarding individual rights but also for maintaining public trust and the integrity of the Indonesian criminal justice system.

The investigation stage constitutes a crucial phase in the criminal justice system, as it determines the direction and quality of subsequent law enforcement processes. Within the context of Indonesian criminal procedural law, the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana/KUHAP) grants extensive authority to law enforcement officials, particularly investigators, in order to ensure the effective disclosure of criminal offenses. However, such dominance of authority has the potential to create an imbalance between the interest of law enforcement effectiveness and the protection of human rights, especially when it is not accompanied by adequate mechanisms of limitation and oversight. This study aims to critically analyze the dominance of law enforcement authority at the investigation stage and its implications for law enforcement effectiveness and the potential for abuse of power. The research employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by qualitative analysis of legal doctrines, legislation, and relevant academic literature. The findings indicate that while the dominance of investigative authority does contribute to the effectiveness of investigations, it simultaneously creates opportunities for abuse of power due to weak internal and external oversight mechanisms. This condition results in the erosion of the principles of due process of law and the protection of suspects’ rights within the criminal justice system. Therefore, this study emphasizes the need to strengthen judicial control mechanisms, enhance the accountability of law enforcement officials, and reform criminal procedural law in order to achieve a balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of human rights within a democratic rule-of-law state.

The handling of children involved in narcotics crimes requires a restorative approach focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. This study aims to examine the role of police investigators in applying restorative justice to child offenders in narcotics cases and to identify the obstacles encountered in its implementation. This research employs a normative legal research method with statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials include Law Number 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, and Chief of Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021. The findings show that investigators play a strategic role in facilitating diversion, including conducting initial assessments, facilitating diversion deliberations, and coordinating with supporting institutions such as the Correctional Center (Bapas), National Narcotics Agency (BNN), and Social Services. However, implementation remains suboptimal due to internal constraints, including inadequate training and understanding among investigators, limited facilities such as child-friendly rooms and mediation spaces, regulatory disharmony between the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law and the Narcotics Law, weak inter-agency coordination, and lack of support from families and communities. Post-diversion monitoring is also ineffective. This study concludes that strengthening investigator capacity through specialized training, improving legal frameworks through regulatory harmonization, and enhancing inter-agency collaboration are essential to ensure restorative justice truly serves the best interests of children.