Publication Search

The Public Prosecutor holds a central role in the criminal justice system as the primary controller of the prosecution process. This authority is based on the fundamental principle of Dominus Litis, which literally translates to "master of the case." This paper aims to deeply analyze the implementation of the Dominus Litis principle and to examine the various interests underlying the Public Prosecutor's authority in controlling a criminal case. Using a normative juridical research method with a literature and conceptual approach, this study investigates how the principle legitimizes the prosecutor's power to determine whether a case is suitable for trial, to terminate it, or to resolve it through alternative mechanisms. The analysis reveals that the prosecutor's interest in case control is not merely limited to technical-juridical aspects but also encompasses broader considerations such as the public interest, law enforcement efficiency, and the achievement of restorative justice. While granting significant discretion, this absolute authority also raises discourse on the importance of effective oversight mechanisms to prevent potential abuse of power and ensure accountability. It is concluded that the implementation of the Dominus Litis principle must always be balanced with transparency and objectivity to ensure that case control by the prosecutor genuinely aims to achieve substantive justice

This study discusses the legal vacuum that occurs in the pre-prosecution process, especially related to the absence of time limits and frequency of return of examination report files (BAP) between investigators and public prosecutors. This vacuum has the potential to hinder the principle of fast, simple, and low-cost justice that should be applied in the Indonesian criminal justice system. This study proposes solutions in the form of setting clear time limits, improving coordination between investigators and public prosecutors, and providing training to improve human resource capacity. In addition, the application of sanctions for parties who violate the provisions of pre-prosecution is an important step to ensure the smooth running of the judicial process. This study is expected to contribute to increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system in Indonesia.    

Restorative justice or better known as restorative justice in the development of schools of law and punishment in human civilization, where the state returns the ius ponale and ius poniendi mandates to the community within the framework of healing, recovery and recovery. Restorative justice is a concept of thinking that responds to the development of the criminal justice system by focusing on the need to involve actors, communities and victims as a social recovery step in social relations. The principle of restorative justice is one of the principles of law enforcement in resolving cases which can be used as an instrument of recovery and has been implemented by the supreme court in the form of policy implementation (Supreme Court Regulations and Supreme Court Circulars). Restorative justice is considered a model of modern punishment that is more humane than the retributive justice used in the current justice system. One of the applications of this is the termination of the prosecution process by the prosecutor.