Intelligence Function in Preventing Corruption: Indonesian Prosecutor's Office and Strategic Development Security
Abstract
The prevention of corruption crimes involves both repressive and preventive measures. The Indonesian Public Prosecutor’s Office implements preventive efforts through various stages of intelligence functions. To enhance these efforts, the Attorney General’s Office of Indonesia introduced the Security for Strategic Development - Regional Investment program. This study aims to determine the legal status and certainty of the technical guidelines on security for strategic development and regional investments in the context of anti-corruption measures. It is a prescriptive legal study that employs descriptive analysis and a legal approach, considering various laws and regulations. Data collection includes library and field research surveys, documentary studies, and interviews. Qualitative analysis reveals that the strategic development and technical guidelines for security of local investments align with Law No. 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 17 of 2011 concerning State Intelligence, and the Regulation of the Attorney General No. PER-006/A/JA/07/2017 concerning the organization and work procedure of the Indonesian Prosecutor’s Office. However, the authority to prevent corruption was not explicitly stated in the 2004 Attorney General’s Law, and thus, adjustments were made through B-484/D/Dpp/03/2020, dated March 12, 2020, based on Law No. 11 of 2021 concerning the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office to ensure legal certainty in anti-corruption efforts.
Keywords: attorney, intelligence function, strategic development security
References
[1] Ali A. Menguak Tabir Hukum [Revealing the Law]Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia; 2008. pp. 30–1.
[2] Rama KT. Kamus Lengkap Bahasa Indonesia [Complete Indonesian Dictionary] Surabaya: Karya Agung; 2008. p. 175.
[3] Hartanti E. Tindak Pidana Korupsi [Corruption Crime]Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2007. p. 1.
[4] Wahyuni F. Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana di Indonesia [Basic Criminal Law in Indonesia], Tangerang Selatan: Nusantara Persada Utama, 2017:3.
[5] Hatta M. Kejahatan Luar Biasa [Extra Ordinary Crime], Cet. ke-1, Lhokseumawe: Unimal Press, 2019:95.
[6] Hatta M. Kejahatan Luar Biasa [Extra Ordinary Crime], Cet. ke-1, Lhokseumawe: Unimal Press, 2019:8-9.
[7] Investigation of Corruption Crimes is part of the police’s authority based on or guided by the MoU that has been mutually agreed upon by the National Police, the KPK, and the Attorney General’s Office, the agreement is contained in the Joint Agreement Between the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office, the Police and the Corruption Eradication Commission Number: KEP-049/A/J.A/03 /2012, No. B/23/III/2012, and No. SP3-39/01/03/2012 concerning Optimization of Corruption Eradication.
[8] Prasetyo HM. “Inovasi Penegakan Hukum Berbasis Paradigma Restoratif, Korektif dan Rehabilitatif Untuk Percepatan Pembangunan Nasional” [”Law EnforcementInnovation Based on Restorative, Corrective and Rehabilitative Paradigm for the Acceleration of National Development”], Scientific Speech, delivered at the ceremony of conferring an honorary Doctor Honoris Causa degree in the field of law at the Faculty of Law, Diponegoro University. Semarang, 22 February 2018.
[9] Imron A. “Peran dan Kedudukan Empat Pilar Dalam Penegakan Hukum Hakim Jaksa Polisi Serta Advocat Dihubungkan Dengan Penegakan Hukum Pada Kasus Korupsi” [“The Role and Position of the Four Pillars in Law Enforcement, Judges, Police Prosecutors and Advocates Connected with Law Enforcement in Corruption Cases”], Jurnal Surya Kencana Dua: Dinamika Masalah Hukum dan Keadilan Vol. 6.1, Maret (2016): 83-107. https://doi.org/10.32493/jdmhkdmhk.v6i1.340.
[10] Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan [ Justice and the Eradication of Corruption: The Prosecutor’s Perspective]Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2019. p. 10.
[11] Yusuf M, et al. “Kedudukan Jaksa Sebagai Pengacara Negara Dalam Lingkup Perdata dan Tata Usaha Negara” [”Position of the Prosecutor as a State Lawyer in the Civil and State Administrative Scope”], Jurnal Yustika Vol. 21.2, December (2018): 12-28.
[12] Website Resmi Kejaksaan RI. “Tentang Kejaksaan” [”About the Prosecutor’s Office”], https://www.kejaksaan.go.id/profil_kejaksaan.php?id=1., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[13] Prasetyo HM. “Inovasi Penegakan Hukum Berbasis Paradigma Restoratif, Korektif dan Rehabilitatif Untuk Percepatan Pembangunan Nasional” [”Law Enforcement Innovation Based on Restorative, Corrective and Rehabilitative Paradigm for the Acceleration of National Development”], Scientific Speech, delivered at the ceremony of conferring an honorary Doctor Honoris Causa degree in the field of law at the Faculty of Law, Diponegoro University. Semarang, 22 February 2018.
[14] Kompas.com. “Gubernur Edy Malu, Sumut Peringkat 2 Provinsi Terkorup di Indonesia” [”Governor Edy Malu, North Sumatra Ranked 2nd Most Corrupt Province in Indonesia”] https://regional.kompas.com/read/2021/06/10/140212478/gubernuredy- malu-sumut-peringkat-2-provinsi-terkorup-di-indonesia?page=all., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[15] Tagar.id. “Para Pejabat Siantar Dalam Pusaran Kasus Korupsi” [“Siantar Officials in the Vortex of Corruption Cases”], uploaded Thursday, 23 July 2020, https://www.tagar.id/para-pejabat-siantar-dalam-pusaran-kasus-korupsi., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[16] Kompas.com. “Korupsi Pengadaan Internet, Kadis Kominfo Pematangsiantar dan Sekretarisnya Ditahan”, [”Internet Procurement Corruption, Head of the Pematangsiantar Communication and Informatics Office and Secretary Detained”], uploaded Wednesday, 22 July 2020,) https://regional.kompas.com/read/2020/07/22/22083181/korupsi-pengadaaninternet- kadis-kominfo-pematangsiantar-dan-sekretarisnya?page=all., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[17] Kompas.com. “9 Kepala Daerah di Sumatera Utara Yang Terjerat Korupsi” [”9 Regional Heads in North Sumatra Trapped in Corruption”], https://regional.kompas.com/read/2018/07/19/08421331/9-kepala-daerah-disumatera- utara-yang-terjerat-korupsi?page=all., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[18] Indonesia CN. “2 Tersangka Korupsi Rp. 109 M PT. Perkebunan Ditahan”, [“2 Corruption Suspects Rp. 109M PT. Plantation Detained”], https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20211105093707-12-716956/2-tersangkakorupsi- rp109-m-pt-perkebunan-sumut-ditahan., accessed Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
[19] Drani FN. “Penyelesaian Korupsi Dengan Menggunakan Restoratif Justice” [”Resolving Corruption Using Restorative Justice”], Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol. 20.4, (2020): 605-617. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2020.V20.605-617.
[20] Dananjaya IM. dkk., “Peranan Intelijen Kejaksaan Dalam Pengungkapan Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Kasus Kejaksaan Negeri Buleleng)” [”The Role of the Attorney’s Intelligence in Disclosing Corruption Crime Cases (Case Study of the Buleleng District Prosecutor’s Office)”], Jurnal Preferensi Hukum Vol. 3.1, Maret (2022): 12-6.
[21] Kelsen H, Huijbers T. Filsafat Hukum [Philosophy of Law]Yogyakarta: Kanisius; 2010. p. 44.
[22] Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan [ Justice and the Eradication of Corruption: The Prosecutor’s Perspective]Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2019. p. 11.
[23] Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan [ Justice and the Eradication of Corruption: The Prosecutor’s Perspective]Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2019. p. 12.
[24] Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan [ Justice and the Eradication of Corruption: The Prosecutor’s Perspective]Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2019. p. 12.
[25] Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan [ Justice and the Eradication of Corruption: The Prosecutor’s Perspective]Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2019. p. 12.
[26] Hamzah A, Yusni M. Keadilan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perspektif Kejaksaan
[27] Instruction of the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 2 of 2014 is addressed to 1) The Ministers of the United Indonesia Cabinet II; 2) the Cabinet Secretary; 3) the Attorney General; 4) the Head of the Indonesian National Police; 5) Head of the Presidential Work Unit for Supervision and Development Control; 6) Heads of Non- Ministerial Government Institutions; 7) Secretaries General of State High Institutions; 8) Governors; and 9) Regents/Mayors.
[28] Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a public prosecutor is a prosecutor who is authorized to prosecute. See. Saragih, Y.M., “Peran Kejaksaan Dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia Pasca Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi”
[29] According to Ningrum. P.A.P., the existence of the prosecutor’s office as an investigator in corruption cases cannot be fully understood with one opinion. This is due to the fact that in judicial practice there are courts that cannot accept the reason that prosecutors have the authority to investigate corruption. The authority of the prosecutor’s office in investigating corruption crimes are still being questioned, and a judicial review has been carried out at the Constitutional Court. In this trial what is being questioned is the existence of Article 30 Letter d of the Prosecutor’s Law, namely regarding the authority of the prosecutor’s office in investigating certain criminal acts (criminal acts of corruption). The Supreme Court has provided an answer in response to this legal issue by issuing its opinion through Supreme Court Fatwa No. KMA/102/III/2005, dated 9 March 2005, in essence, the fatwa is of the opinion that prosecutors have the authority to investigate cases of corruption after the Corruption Law comes into force. See. Ningrum, P.A.P., “Kewenangan Kejaksaan Dalam Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi” [”Authorities of the Prosecutor’s Office in Investigating Corruption Crimes”], http://jurnal.stahnmpukuturan.ac.id/index.php/pariksa/article/view/698/579., accessed Saturday, 08 October 2022: 1-7.
[30] Article 223 paragraph (1) RI Attorney General Regulation No. PER-006/A/JA/2017 concerning the Organization and Work Procedure of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia.
[31] Article 223 paragraph (2) RI Attorney General Regulation No. PER-006/A/JA/2017 concerning the Organization and Work Procedure of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia.
[32] Julyano M, Sulistyawan AY. “Pemahaman Terhadap Asas Kepastian Hukum Melalui Konstruksi Penalaran Positivisme Hukum” [”Understanding of the Principle of Legal Certainty Through the Construction of Legal Positivism Reasoning”], Jurnal Crepido Vol. 1.1, July (2019): 13-22.
[33] The Drafting Team. “Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia [“Academic Manuscript of the Draft Law of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia”], Jakarta, 2020: 123.
[34] The Drafting Team. “Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia [“Academic Manuscript of the Draft Law of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia”], Jakarta, 2020: 123- 124.
[35] Harahap MD. dkk., “Peran Intelijen Kejaksaan Dalam Mengungkap Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi” [”The Role of the Attorney’s Intelligence in Revealing Corruption Crime Cases”], Jurnal Ilmiah Metadata. 2021 September;3.3:122-46. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.10101/metadata.v3i3.
[36] At the South Kalimantan High Prosecutor’s Office. the handling of corruption in 2019 decreased compared to 2018. This was claimed by the South Kalimantan High Court, due to the presence of TP4D overseeing projects owned by the regional government. In fact, during the investigation into corruption cases, the state money saved during 2019 in South Kalimantan reached Rp. 4.6 billion, a decrease compared to 2018 of Rp. 7.9 billion. Currently, there are 17 cases under investigation, a decrease compared to 2018, with 26 cases. See. Jejakrekam.com, “TP4D Dibubarkan Diganti Unit Kerja Baru Bernama PPS” [”TP4D Disbanded Replaced with a New Work Unit Named PPS”], https://jejakrekam.com/2019/12/13/tp4d-dibubarkan-diganti-unit-kerjabaru- bernama-pps/., accessed Monday, 05 September 2022. Compared to North Sumatra, in 2017 all Prosecutors in North Sumatra from TP4D have overseen 736development projects. With a value of Rp. 4.180 trillion. Meanwhile, from January to March 2018, there have been 154 development projects with Rp. 3.982 trillion. See. Simanjuntak, L., in tagar.id, “TP4D Bukan Pengaman Proyek, Asintel Kejati Sumut: Laporkan Jaksa Nakal” [”TP4D Is Not a Project Safeguard, North Sumatra Prosecutor’s Assistant: Report Naughty Prosecutors”], https://www.tagar.id/tp4d-bukanpengaman- proyek-asintel-kejati-sumut-laporkan-jaksa-nakal., accessed Monday, 05 September 2022.
[37] Statement of the Deputy Attorney General for Intelligence ( JAM-Intelijen) Amir Yanto in his press release, Friday (22/4/2022), in RRI.co.id, “Lewat PPS, Kejaksaan Amankan Kegiatan Proyek Rp. 252 Triliun” [”Through PPS, the Attorney General’s Office Secures Rp. 252 Trillion”], https://rri.co.id/semarang/ruang-publik/pressrelease/ 1434535/lewat-pps-kejaksaan-amankan-kegiatan-proyek-rp-252-triliun., accessed Monday, 05 September 2022.
[38] Satria H. “Restorative Justice: Paradigma Baru Peradilan Pidana” [”Restorative Justice: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice”], Jurnal Media Hukum Vol. 25.1, June (2018): 111-23. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.2018.0107.111-123.
[39] Sutadi L. “Pencegahan dan Penangkalan (Cekal) Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia” [”Prevention and Deterrence (Banned) According to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia”], Law Faculty of MPU Tantular University Yure Humano Vol. 2.1, (2018): 1-18.
[40] Santosa SB. “Kewenangan Kejaksaan Sebagai Penyidik Tindak Pidana Korupsi” [”Authorities of the Prosecutor’s Office as Investigators of Corruption Crimes”], Maksimagama Jurnal Hukum Tahun 18.1, November (2015): 77-90. https://doi.org/10.37303/.v9i1.6.
[41] Hutahaeian A, Indarti E. “Lembaga Penyidik Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu di Indonesia” [”Investigating Institutions in the Integrated Criminal Justice System in Indonesia”], Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol. 16.1, March (2019): 27-41.
[42] Yuliani A. “Daya Ikat Pengundangan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan” [”The Binding Power of Promulgation of Legislation”], Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol. 14.4, (2017): 429-38.
[43] Barhamudin & Bustomi. A., “Jaksa Penyidik dan Penuntut Umum Dalam Pidana Korupsi Menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia” [”Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors in Corruption Crimes According to Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code”], Solusi Vol. 21.1, JanuarY (2023): 68-81.
[44] Iswara IM, Wirawan KA. “Peran Kejaksaan Dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Desa di Indonesia” [”The Prosecutor’s Role in Eradicating Village Corruption Crimes in Indonesia”], Kertha Wicaksana Vol. 14.1, (2020): 190-9.