Indonesia Police Watch (IPW) has raised concerns regarding the potential risks of arrogance stemming from the Dominus Litis principle in the Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP). This principle, which is said to contradict the Constitution, could lead to the emergence of arrogance within the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Dominus Litis principle places prosecutors in a position to determine whether a case should proceed to trial or be dropped, thereby taking over the authority of the police in investigating and halting cases. IPW Chairman, Sugeng Teguh Santoso, explained that Dominus Litis is a legal principle inherent to prosecutors, empowering them to control cases during the prosecution stage.
According to Sugeng, the application of Dominus Litis in the RUU KUHAP expands the principle to encompass areas that fall under the jurisdiction of other institutions, such as the Indonesian National Police (Polri). This development raises concerns as it could grant the Public Prosecutor’s Office absolute authority in criminal law enforcement, potentially leading to power abuse.
In the proposed regulations of the RUU KUHAP, Article 28 states that prosecutors can request investigations, arrests, and detentions. Meanwhile, Article 30 allows prosecutors to request the termination of investigations, emphasizing that such actions require written approval from the prosecutor. This broadening of the Dominus Litis principle places the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a dominant force in the criminal law enforcement process, potentially overshadowing the role of the police in investigation and inquiry.
Sugeng emphasized that if the expanded Dominus Litis principle is implemented in the RUU KUHAP, the Public Prosecutor’s Office would wield absolute authority in criminal law enforcement, creating opportunities for power abuse. This absolute authority could lead to potential deviations and misuse of power, highlighting the need for caution in granting such significant powers to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The application of the expanded Dominus Litis principle in Articles 28 and 30 of the RUU KUHAP does not align with the concept of checks and balances. Instead, it leans towards absolutism or the centralization of authority within a single institution, raising concerns about the distribution of power in the criminal justice system.
Sugeng suggested that while the process of checks and balances is crucial in police investigations, it should not be entrusted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Instead, he proposed that this responsibility should be placed within the judicial branch to ensure a more balanced and fair system.
For instance, Sugeng highlighted the importance of involving a Judicial Commissioner in decisions related to arrests, detentions, and seizures. By seeking approval from a Judicial Commissioner, the police would be required to follow a model that involves the judicial branch, promoting transparency and accountability in law enforcement processes.
In conclusion, the discussion surrounding the Dominus Litis principle in the RUU KUHAP underscores the importance of maintaining a balanced distribution of power within the criminal justice system. By avoiding absolutism and emphasizing checks and balances, Indonesia can uphold the principles of justice and accountability in law enforcement, ensuring a fair and equitable legal system for all.
