The Prosecutor’s Authority to Conduct a Criminal Investigation Based on The Government Administration Law

This research uses a normative approach, which is carried out by examining laws and theories. Also, this study uses a case approach, namely the 2017 village fund corruption case in Pekon Sukaratu. The main problem in this res­earch is what is the authority of the prosecutor in conducting investigations into criminal acts of corruption after the passage of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and whether the investigation carried out by the prosecutor at the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office in coordination with the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus or Aparatur Pengawas Internal Pemerintah (APIP) against the allegations a criminal act of corruption in the management of village funds in 2017 in Pekon Sukaratu whose losses to the state have been returned have met the principle of legal certainty. The research results show that the prosecutor has the authority to carry out the law enforcement process, namely the investigation of suspected corruption crimes as stipulated in Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of the law on the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. Based on the results of the research that has been done, it is better if changes in laws and regulations related to the elements of corruption in Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crime because there is a product of the Constitutional Court with the decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016. Besides, there is a need for socialization for prosecutors regarding their authority in TPK investigations and related to coordination patterns with the authority of APIP in carrying out investigations and calculating state financial losses.


This research uses a normative approach, which is carried out by examining laws and theories. Also, this study uses a case approach, namely the 2017 village fund corruption case in Pekon Sukaratu. The main problem in this research is what is the authority of the prosecutor in conducting investigations into criminal acts of corruption after the passage of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and whether the investigation carried out by the prosecutor at the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office in coordination with the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus or Aparatur Pengawas Internal Pemerintah (APIP) against the allegations a criminal act of corruption in the management of village funds in 2017 in Pekon
Sukaratu whose losses to the state have been returned have met the principle of legal certainty. The research results show that the prosecutor has the authority to carry out the law enforcement process, namely the investigation of suspected corruption crimes as stipulated in Article 30 paragraph (1)  2) Mixing up authority means decisions or actions or actions of government bodies or officials that are outside the scope of the field or material of the authority given; and/or contrary to the purpose of the authority given (Article 18 Paragraph (2) of the AP Law); 3) Acting arbitrarily is a decision or action or action without the basis of authority; and/or contrary to a Court Decision which has permanent legal force (Article 18 Paragraph (3) of the AP Law).
That there is an Agreement dated 28 February 2018 (MoU) regarding the Coordination of the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP). The agreement states that APIP plays the role of investigative examination/investigation of government officials who commit administrative errors. Likewise, if the prosecutor's office and the police receive a public report and an investigation is carried out, there is an administrative error. It can be submitted to APIP. However, suppose the APIP conducting the examination finds indications of suspected corruption. In that case, it can be submitted to the prosecutor's office or police for further action (Article 7 Paragraph (2), (3) and (4) Cooperation Agreement of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Attorney General's Office and Police dated 28 February 2018). APIP plays an important role in government administration supervision, one of which is in financial supervision that has the potential for state financial losses resulting from the abuse of authority in the perspective of an administrative approach. This is based on Article 20 Paragraph (4) and Article 70 Paragraph (3) Law no. 30 of 2014, which states that if the APIP examination finds state losses, it can be returned within 10 (ten) working days after the loss is found. The prosecutor team has implemented this at the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office.
At the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office, there is an investigation into village funds' corruption crime. Based on the investigation, Sprint Print-07/N.8.16.8/Fd.1/08/2018 on 16 August 2018 signed by the Head of the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office, investigative Prosecutor Team conducted an investigation signed on into the alleged TPK of village funds and the allocation of village funds to Pekon Sukaratu, Pagelaran District, Pringsewu Regency. The Pringsewu District Prosecutors' Team of Investigating Prosecutors found allegations of illegal acts that indicated the alleged TPK against Village Funds and Village Fund Allocation. These findings were carried out in coordination with the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus or Aparat Pengawas Internal Pemerintah (APIP), namely Pringsewu Regency's Inspectorate, which based on the examination there were state losses that had to be returned by the head of the pekon or village head. When the state losses had been recovered (state losses were not there) because after the passing of Law No.30 of 2014, there is a return of state losses, so the investigation stage is stopped by the investigating team Pringsewu District Attorney.
Based on the description above, the problem to be investigated is what is the authority of the prosecutor in investigating criminal acts of corruption after the passage of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and whether the prosecutor carried out the investigation at the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office in coordination with APIP against allegations of corruption in the management of village funds in 2017 in Pekon Sukaratu whose state losses have been returned has fulfilled the principle of legal certainty. The research method used in this research is the normative approach method, which is carried out by examining laws and theories, where normative research is library research. Also, this study uses juridical research, which examines the function of law or a rule in its application in the community, using a case approach, namely the corruption case of village funds in 2017 in Pekon Sukaratu.

B. Discussion 1. The Authority of Prosecutors to Investigate Criminal Acts of Corruption After Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration
The investigation is an attempt to find a criminal event and search for evidence in a criminal act. 5 The law enforcement system against criminal acts with an integrated system or Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS) investigation is an integral part of the investigation itself. 6 Suppose the investigation is a series of actions to find a criminal event. In that case, the investigation based on Article 1 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of investigation is a business activity to find and collect evidence that sheds light on the criminal act that occurred and found the suspect.
The authority of investigation and investigation cannot stand alone, but instead, support each other and become one unit as a law enforcement system which the Indonesian Attorney carries out, one of which is based on Article 30 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 16 of 2004 concerning the RI Attorney General's Office. Then the Constitutional Court considered its decision, namely Article 30 Paragraph (1) letter d of the law on the prosecution, only providing entry points that open up opportunities for legislators to give the authority to conduct investigations to the Prosecutor's Office in certain laws. 7 The power of the prosecutor to conduct investigations and investigations is also contained in the transitional regulation of Article 284 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that there are provisions for 2 (two) years after this KUHAP is ratified. 8 So there are exceptions to the provisions specifically for criminal procedural law, namely investigation of the TPK, which among others is regulated in the Law on Investigation, Prosecution and Economic Crime Justice (Law Number 7 Drt. 1955) (1)  Number 28/PUU-V/2007 implies that the criminal law enforcement process in Indonesia contains the ICJS mechanism for criminal law enforcement processes as a series of units from the investigation, prosecution, termination of cases to settlement at the correctional institution level. Thus, prosecutors' power in conducting investigations and investigations into criminal acts of corruption is based on positive law and judge jurisprudence and is factually recognized that prosecutors have the authority to carry out investigations and investigations into criminal acts of corruption. Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration was enacted because it has the Government Administration Bill's main objective, namely improving the quality of public services and government relations with the community. 11  Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration contains public law (namely criminal law) and private law (civil law), and state administrative law. 14 This combination of laws creates a progressive impact on TPK law enforcement which implies that there are actions against the law that benefit oneself or another person or a corporation as referred to in Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the Corruption Act and the abuse of authority to benefit oneself or a corporation as referred to in Article 3 of the Corruption Act. Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Act are vulnerable to multiple interpretations by law enforcement officials, which lead to the criminalization of government officials. 15 In-Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning AP contains Article 17, Article 18, Article 19, Article 20, and Article 80, which are mutually related to the actions of government officials who are prohibited from abusing authority, supervision by APIP, and sanctions. In the administrative law concept, abuse of authority is always paralleled with the concept of detournement de pouvoir in the French legal system or abuse of power/misuse of power in English terms. 16 There is an abuse of power in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration can result in the functioning of public law (criminal law), private law (civil law), and state administrative law. This provision functions in public law, namely when the abuse of power can become a criminal act of corruption that causes state losses (real cost). 17 The law's function results in the abuse of authority, which results in losses to the state. The government apparatus/government officials must return the losses to the state. Then, the government administration system's functioning is related to the Government Administration Law, namely that offenders can be subject to administrative sanctions. 18 There are real losses that are not potential losses or potential losses to the state. Hence the existence of Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of TPK means that there must be a definite and real loss of state finances to protect legal certainty for state administrators. Article 20 Paragraph (4) Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration states that if there is an administrative error and there is a state loss, then the loss can be returned within a period often. This becomes the basis of examining reports or complaints from the public to law enforcement officials related to indications of a criminal act of corruption. First, an in-depth examination is carried out whether the act is an act of abuse of authority included in Article 17 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration or including TPK. 19 The prosecutor's authority is closely related to investigating criminal acts of corruption, namely the existence of a Cooperation Agreement (MoU) 20 Based on these matters, the prosecutor has the authority to carry out the process of law enforcement, namely investigating alleged TPK then after the enactment of Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, law enforcement of non-criminal corruption allegations are not only judged by the element of corruption, which is in the form of acts against the law, however, it must also be considered that real state losses can be recovered from the results of state losses. In the view of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office, the return of state losses is one of the benchmarks for assessing work performance.

Legal certainty for the investigation of the Pringsewu District Attorney's Office in coordination with the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus or Aparatur Pengawas Internal Pemerintah (APIP) on the Return of State Losses for Alleged Corruption in Village Funds of Pekon Sukaratu
Legal certainty becomes the boundary line so that the government does not use the power they have to oppress the people. Legal certainty means the legal instruments of a country that can guarantee every citizen's rights and obligations. The principle of legal certainty is a principle that aims to respect the rights owned by a person based on a state administrative P-ISSN 2723-2484 Volume 2 Issue 1, January-June 2021 E-ISSN 2745-9330 17 body or official decision. The principle of legal certainty, namely the principle in a state of law that prioritizes the foundation of statutory regulations, compliance, and justice in every policy of state administrators. The principle of legal certainty has two aspects, namely material law and formal law. Material law aspects are closely related to the principle of trust. This principle requires the respect of rights that have been obtained by a person based on a government decision even though the decision is wrong. In other words, for the sake of legal certainty, every decision issued by the government is not to be revoked. Of course, this legal certainty is related to determining the prosecutor's investigation in covering someone until the issuance of a judge's decision from the court or prosecutor's office. The Pringsewu District Attorney's Team has examined 106 people for questioning and examined the Accountability Report to use village funds. Based on the Investigation Result Report dated 26 December 2018, the investigating team found an accountability report in the form of notes suspected to be not true. Based on the statements of several parties who were asked for the information, it turned out to be true. Furthermore, it was explained that the Activity Implementation Team or Team Pelaksana Kegiatan (TPK) had never managed the development activity budget at all because the Head of the Sukaratu Pekon directly managed the management. For calculating the volume of development work, based on the examination results that the Expert had calculated, there was a difference, namely in the amount of Rp 64.792.900. Based on the investigation team's information, there was an overpayment made by the Pekon Sukaratu party in developing the use of the Pekon Sukaratu Village Fund. 21 Dalam kasus a quo, Kepala Pekon atau Kepala Desa dan Perangkat Pekon atau Perangkat Desa termasuk dalam subyek yang dilaporkan atau yang diadukan oleh masyarakat yang terdapat dalam MoU tersebut. 22 It is true that the team of investigating prosecutors found a criminal act during the investigation and found a state loss. However, the Pekon Sukaratu treasurer had deposited the state loss into Pekon Sukaratu's treasury in the amount of Rp 254.132.100 on 13 December 13, 2018, it  the letter in the form of recovering state financial losses by Pekon Vooratu by making deposits to the Pekon treasury. Sukaratu of Rp 254.132.100 on 13 December 2018. 26 In the a quo case, the Pringsewu District Prosecutor's Office coordinated with APIP, namely the Pringsewu District Inspectorate Letter No. B-1432/N.8. 16 Guidelines for Handling Corruption Cases, the Investigation Stage, which prioritizes the return of state losses by the parties, is a law enforcement action that can consider further law enforcement processes. Based on these matters, although there have been elements of criminal incidents in the investigation stage of the Pringsewu District Prosecutors' team, and there has also been a refund of state losses by the Pekon Sukaratu Treasurer, it is an integrated ICJS system based on the prevailing laws and regulations and contains legal certainty.

C. Conclusion
Prosecutors have the authority to conduct investigations into criminal acts of corruption based on Article 30 Paragraph (1) (1) and Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes must be interpreted as a real loss to the state (real lost) not a potential loss to the state (potential lost). Furthermore, the implication is that the prosecutor's authority in investigating criminal acts of corruption not only finds elements of corruption in the form of acts against the law, but must also find real losses to the state so that the elements of corruption are fulfilled. The power of prosecutors in conducting investigations has been fulfilled based on the prevailing laws and regulations. The investigating prosecutors conducting investigations into cases of suspected corruption have been fulfilled. The need for amendments to laws systematically and synchronously carried out by lawmakers regarding the authority of prosecutors to carry out investigations because investigation and investigation are an inseparable unit of an integrated system of law enforcement for criminal acts. There needs to be socialization and in-depth understanding for prosecutors regarding the authority of prosecutors as investigators of corruption and the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus or Aparatur Pengawas Internal Pemerintah 26 Ibid. (APIP) in carrying out investigations and calculating state financial losses properly due to the process of the ICJS law enforcement system, especially corruption that has potential lost and real lost by prioritizing the principle of ultimum remedium (application of criminal sanctions as a last resort) which can prioritize the principle of legal certainty and justice so as not to injure human rights.