The Basis of Issuance and Reasons for Revocation of the Attorney General's Guideline No. 7 of 2020
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4688Abstract
This study examines two fundamental issues concerning the Attorney General’s Guideline No. 7 of 2020, which regulates the granting of permission for the summoning, examination, search, arrest, and detention of prosecutors suspected of committing criminal acts. The primary issues analyzed are: (1) the juridical and philosophical foundations underlying the issuance of the Guideline, and (2) the legal basis and substantive reasons for its subsequent revocation. This research employs a normative legal research method, using statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approaches by analyzing laws and regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant scholarly opinions. Juridically, the issuance of the Guideline was grounded in Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia, which requires the Attorney General’s authorization for law enforcement actions against prosecutors. This provision aims to prevent arbitrary criminalization and protect prosecutorial independence. Philosophically, the Guideline was intended to provide procedural legal protection for prosecutors in their role as dominus litis, enabling them to perform their duties independently and free from intimidation while preserving the dignity of the prosecutorial profession. However, the Guideline was revoked shortly after its enactment through the Decree of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number 163 of 2020 due to political, legal, and sociological considerations, particularly public concerns regarding equality before the law and the potential for prosecutorial impunity. This study concludes that the issuance and revocation of the Guideline reflect an inherent tension between the need for institutional protection of prosecutors and public demands for transparency, accountability, and equality before the law within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
Keywords:
Attorney General, Authorization for Examination, Criminal Law PolicyDownloads
Total Abstract Views: 22 |
Total Downloads: 13
References
Adami Chazawi, Hukum Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi, (Malang: Bayumedia Publishing, 2011), hlm. 20-22.
Andi Hamzah, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2017), hlm. 12-15.
Ashworth, Andrew, dan Mike Redmayne. The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Barda Nawawi Arief, Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana, (Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2010), hlm. 78.
Barkow, R. E. (2009). Institutional design and the policing of prosecutors. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, 2009, 869–925. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1271186.
Bibas, Stephanos & Michael, Michael (Eds.). (2017). Prosecutorial Regulation and Accountability: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press.
Boister, Neil. An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Chan, J. (2016). Prosecutorial discretion in Asia: Accountability and reform. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 11No. 2, 2016, 203–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2016.14.
Comaroff, John & Jean Comaroff (eds.). Law and Disorder in the Postcolony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Davis, A. J. (2012). The American prosecutor: Independence, power, and the threat of tyranny. Iowa Law Review, Vol. 86 No. 2, 2012, 393–465.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17077/0021-0552.1024
Denny Indrayana, Negara Hukum dan Etika Profesi Hukum: Dari Reformasi ke Revolusi, (Bandung: Kompas Media Nusantara, 2012), hlm. 145-148.
Eddy O.S. Hiariej & Topo Santoso. Anotasi KUHP Nasional. Depok: Rajawali Press, 2025.
Eddy O.S. Hiariej, Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana, (Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2014), hlm. 35-37.
Firmansyah, A., & Nurhayati, S. (2021). Diskresi jaksa dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, Vol. 28 No. 2, 2021, 285–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss2.art5
Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Glenn, H. Patrick. On Common Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Jojon Desduan Lumban Gaol & Joko Setiyono, Urgensi Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Jaksa, Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, Vol. 17 No. 2 Maret–April 2023, hlm. 833–848 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35931/aq.v17i2.1958.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP)
Langer, M. (2004). From legal formalism to prosecutorial discretion. American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 52 No. 4, 2004, 835–880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4144474.
Lilik Mulyadi, Hukum Acara Pidana Perspektif Teori dan Praktik Penuntutan, Edisi Revisi, (Jakarta: Djambatan, 2017), hlm. 55-58.
M. Yahya Harahap, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2009), hlm. 105-110.
Menski, Werner F. Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Miller, C. M. et al. “A survey of prosecutors and investigators using digital evidence.” Forensic Science International: Synergy, Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022): 100296. DOI: https://doi.org 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100296.
Muhammad Mustofa, Kriminologi: Kajian tentang Kejahatan, Perilaku Menyimpang, dan Pengendalian Sosial, (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2017), hlm. 310-315.
Muladi dan Barda Nawawi Arief, Teori-Teori dan Kebijakan Pidana, (Bandung: Alumni, 2010), hlm. 95-98.
Nelson, Michael J., & Samarth, Taran. “Judging prosecutors: Public support for prosecutorial discretion.” Research & Politics, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2022): 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org 10.1177/20531680221134999.
Nguyen, Viet & Ouss, Aurélie. Prosecutorial Guidelines and Courtroom Workgroups Justice Quarterly Vol. 43, No. 1, January 2026: 1–30. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2025.2572686
Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Patrick Glenn, H. On Common Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Pedoman Jaksa Agung Nomor 7 Tahun 2020 tentang Pemberian Izin Jaksa Agung atas Pemanggilan, Pemeriksaan, Penggeledahan, Penangkapan, dan Penahanan terhadap Jaksa yang Diduga Melakukan Tindak Pidana. Jakarta: Kejaksaan Agung Republik Indonesia, 2020
Podgor, Ellen S. Prosecutorial Discretion Is Grounded in Law. Boston Journal of Criminal Law Vol. 3, 2025 (tent. 2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38445HF5K.
Prakoso, A. (2020). Independensi kejaksaan dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi, Vol. 17 No. 3, 2020, 489–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1734.
Rahmadani, R. (2022). Kebijakan internal penuntutan dan prinsip equality before the law. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, Vol. 11No. 1, 2022, 77–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v11i1.875.
Romli Atmasasmita, Sistem Peradilan Pidana Kontemporer, (Bandung: PT Alumni, 2010), hlm. 40-45.
Satjipto Rahardjo, Ilmu Hukum, (Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2000), hlm. 120-125
Soesilo, R., Hukum Acara Pidana: Prosedur Pelaksanaan dan Teknik Penuntutan, Cetakan Kedua, (Bogor: Politeia, 1993), hlm. 45-48.
Stuntz, W. J. (2006). The pathological politics of criminal law. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 100 No. 3, 2006, 505–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1285068.
Tonry, M. (2013). Prosecutorial discretion and sentencing reform. Crime and Justice, Vol. 42 No. 1, 2013, 151–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/670397.
Topo Santoso, Reformasi Hukum Pidana Indonesia: Menuju KUHP Modern, (Jakarta: Kencana, 2023), hlm. 50-55
Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2021 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the Auhtor(s) Published by Development Centre Research of Law and Scientific Publication on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
