The Indonesian Prosecutor’s Office is one of three state institutions authorized to investigate corruption cases in Indonesia. Before the implementation of an optimization system, the Prosecutor’s Office assessed its effectiveness in combating corruption based on a target system. Under this system, the institution was considered “fairly effective” in combating corruption. Ajimbar, S.H., M.H. explained this during his doctoral promotion examination on Tuesday (11/10).
“The institution is considered effective if it reaches the target of 1,457 cases,” Ajimbar said. He explained that, based on data obtained through his research, the Prosecutor’s Office handled an average of 1,284.3 corruption cases each year.
Ajimbar identified several factors that hinder the performance of the Prosecutor’s Office in combating corruption. In his dissertation, entitled Kajian Pelaksanaan Tugas Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Berdasarkan Indeks Prestasi Penyidikan (A Study of the Implementation of the Duties of the Indonesian Prosecutor’s Office in Combating Corruption Based on the Investigation Performance Index), he identified three categories of obstacles: legislation, internal factors within the Prosecutor’s Office, and external factors.
Certain laws and regulations have restricted the Prosecutor’s Office from taking repressive measures against certain corruption suspects. These include Constitutional Court Decision No. 73/PUU-IX/2011 and Law No. 9 of 2015, particularly Article 384 paragraph (1). Under these provisions, investigators must first obtain written permission from the President, the Minister of Home Affairs acting on behalf of the President, or the relevant regional head before taking action against certain corruption suspects.
Ajimbar also raised concerns about the regulation of the death penalty for corruption offenders, as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (2) of Law No. 31 of 1999 jo. Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. Under the provision, a corruption offender may be sentenced to death when the offense is committed under certain circumstances. However, the criteria defining these “certain circumstances” have not been clearly formulated.
“Our recommendation as the promoter is that the criteria for these certain circumstances should be clearly stipulated in the corruption legislation. It must also be clear which authority is responsible for determining those circumstances. For example, would it be the TNI Commander when the country is in an insecure situation, the Minister of Finance during a monetary crisis, or the Minister of Environment in the event of a natural disaster? These matters need to be clearly regulated,” Ajimbar emphasized.
Regarding internal obstacles within the Prosecutor’s Office, Ajimbar stressed the importance of instilling a strong sense of national service among its personnel. “There are many obstacles to taking repressive measures at the investigation stage. When prosecutors lack a strong sense of dedication, it becomes difficult to achieve results,” he said. (Lita)
