Rechtsidee
Vol 11 No 2 (2023): December
Philosophy of Law

Evaluating the Construction and Limitations of Opportunism Principle in Indonesian Judiciary
Mengevaluasi Konstruksi dan Keterbatasan Asas Oportunisme dalam Peradilan di Indonesia

Article View
  • Ade Sathya Sanathana Ishwara*
Ade Sathya Sanathana Ishwara
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Mataram, Indonesia *

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i2.982


Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
Published December 25, 2023
Keywords
  • Opportunism Principle,
  • Indonesian Judiciary,
  • Legal Certainty,
  • Attorney General,
  • Progressive Law
How to Cite
Ishwara, A. S. S. (2023). Evaluating the Construction and Limitations of Opportunism Principle in Indonesian Judiciary. Rechtsidee, 11(2), 10.21070/jihr.v12i2.982. https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i2.982

Copyright (c) 2023 Ade Sathya Sanathana Ishwara (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This research scrutinizes the construction, limitations, and parameters of the opportunism principle concerning public interest within the framework of progressive law in Indonesia, employing a normative legal research methodology. The study intricately analyzes legislative regulations through the lens of progressive law theory, incorporating primary legal materials such as the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the laws governing the Judiciary and the Prosecution Service. The preliminary findings indicate a nebulous state in the conceptual evolution of the opportunism principle in Indonesia, characterized by a lack of explicit standards and limitations in its implementation. Furthermore, the study identifies a pressing need for a more stringent selection mechanism and orientation towards the opportunism principle for prospective Attorney Generals to foster legal certainty and diminish community legal uncertainty. This study aims to contribute towards fostering a robust jurisprudential foundation, enhancing the role and moral authority of the Attorney General in the criminal justice system.
Highlights:

  • Conceptual Ambiguity: Current ambiguities in the opportunism principle necessitate clearer implementation standards in Indonesia.

  • Legal Reforms: The study advocates for pivotal legal reforms to bolster the Attorney General's moral authority and role within the justice system.

  • Implications on the Attorney General's Role: The research highlights the necessity for improved training and stricter selection procedures for prospective Attorney Generals.

Keywords: Opportunism Principle, Progressive Law, Indonesian Judiciary, Legal Certainty, Attorney General

Article View

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. A. Rewabawadewa, “Efektivitas Kinerja Jaksa Pengacara Negara dalam Penyelamatan Aset Pemerintah Daerah: Studi Kasus Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar,” Lex Theory, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 95, 2022.
  2. S. Bella Andreyani, Hidayatullah, “Kewenangan Rangkap Jaksa Sebagai Penyidik, Penuntut Umum Dan Saksi Pelapor (Verbalisan) Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu,” Suara Keadilan, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 147–160, 2019.
  3. A. M. Kanantha and F. Edwar, “Independensi Pengadilan Pajak Ditinjau Dari Pasal 24 Ayat (1) Uud Nri 1945,” Reformasi Huk. Trisakti, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 519–528, 2022, doi: 10.25105/refor.v4i3.13828.
  4. Y. Nugraha, “Optimalisasi Asas Oportunitas Pada Kewenangan Jaksa Guna Meminimalisir Dampak Primum Remedium Dalam Pemidanaan,” Verit. Justitia, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 213–236, 2020, doi: 10.25123/vej.3882.
  5. A. Triwati, “Pengesampingan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum Pascaputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi,” J. Ius Const., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 32, 2020, doi: 10.26623/jic.v6i1.2092.
  6. K. A. W. Sutin, “Kewenangan Jaksa Agung Dalam Mengesampingkan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum,” Kalabbirang Law J., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 20–33, 2021, doi: 10.35877/454ri.kalabbirang133.
  7. I. K. D. Santosa, N. P. R. Yuliartini, and D. G. S. Mangku, “Pengaturan Asas Oportunitas dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia,” J. Pendidik. Kewarganegaraan Undiksha, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 70–80, 2021.
  8. H. A. M. Sri Hasrina, Muhammad Said Karim, “Konsep Kepentingan Umum Dalam Asas Oportunitas Pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia,” Indones. J. Crim. Law, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 17–23, 2021.
  9. D. Setya, B. Yuherawan, and M. Huzaini, “Pertentangan antara asas oportunitas dengan asas equality before the law (pasal 35 huruf c uu nomor 16 tahun 2004 tentang kejaksaan republik indonesia),” Justitia, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 165, 2021.
  10. D. G. P. Y. Made Ananda Bella Cahyani, “Kepastian Hukum Deponering Oleh Jaksa Agung Berdasarkan Asas Oportunitas Pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia,” Kertha Wicara, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 401, 2022.
  11. T. A. S. Negara, “Normative Legal Research In Indonesia: Its Origins And Approaches,” ACLJ, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 5, 2023.
  12. Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Kamus Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.
  13. Sudarsono, Kamus Hukum. Jakarta: Asdi Mahasatya, 2007.
  14. A. Hamzah, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2013.
  15. N. Goldrosen, “Null Effects of a Progressive Prosecution Policy on Marijuana Enforcement,” Criminol. Crim. Justice, Law Soc., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 23–45, 2022, doi: 10.54555/ccjls.4234.34103.
  16. J. P. Supardi Hamid, Gusti Kade Budhi Harryarsana , Adhi Iman Sulaiman, “Reconstruction Of Authorityattorney General In Disclaimer Of Casefor The Sake Of The Public Interest In The Criminal Justice System In Indonesia,” Russ. Law J., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 398, 2023.
  17. C. A. G. Katim, “Restorative Justice dalam Tindak Pidana Ujaran Kebencian Dihubungkan dengan Surat Keputusan Bersama Menkominfo, Jaksa Agung RI, dan Kapolri Nomor 229 Tahun 2021, Nomor 154 Tahun 2021, Nomor Kb/2/Vi/2021 tentang Pedoman Implementasi atas Pasal Tertentu dal,” Lex Gen., vol. 3, no. 7, p. 545, 2022.
  18. D. Broughton, “The South African prosecutor in the face of adverse pre-trial publicity,” Potchefstroom Electron. Law J., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2020, doi: 10.17159/1727-3781/2020/V23I0A7423.
  19. C. N. Panjaitan, A. D. Tambunan, and R. W. Antonius, “Criminal Conviction of Social Workers in the Criminal Justice System,” Leg. Br., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 3614–3621, 2023, doi: 10.35335/legal.Criminal.
  20. R. H. Ook Mufrohim, “Independensi Lembaga Kejaksaan Sebagai Legal Sctructure di dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Criminal Justice Sytem) di Indonesia,” Pembang. Huk. Indones., vol. 2, no. 3, p. 375, 2020.
  21. A. T. Firanti and S. Munawaroh, “The Criminal Cases Settlement with Restorative Justice System,” Srawung J. Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 1, no. 3, p. 45, 2022.
  22. P. Nirmala, “Adversary System in Common Law Countries and Possibility for Implementation in Indonesian Court,” Amsir Law J., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 12–20, 2020, doi: 10.36746/alj.v2i1.28.
  23. F. Afandi, “Maintaining order: Public prosecutors in post-authoritarian countries, the case of Indonesia.” Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, pp. 187–188, 2021.
  24. A. Halim, S. Sudarsono, T. A. S. Negara, and H. R. Hadi, “The Urgency for the Implementation of Transition Norm ‘Lex Favor Reo’ in the Imposition of Tax Sanction in Indonesia,” Open J. Leg. Stud., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 153–166, 2020, doi: 10.32591/coas.ojls.0302.07153h.
  25. R. M. Hazmi, A. S. Jahar, and N. Adhha, “Construction of Justice, Certainty, and Legal Use in the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM/2018.,” J. Cita Huk., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 159–178, 2021, doi: 10.15408/jch.v9i1.11583.
  26. A. Chuasanga and O. Argo Victoria, “Legal Principles Under Criminal Law in Indonesia Dan Thailand,” J. Daulat Huk., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 131, 2019, doi: 10.30659/jdh.v2i1.4218.
  27. A. N. Fata, “The Prosecutor’s Authority In Criminal Law Enforcement With A Restorative Justice Approach,” J. Huk. Khaira Ummah, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2022.
  28. N. Nurkholim, “Termination of Criminal Investigations by The Prosecutor Under Criminal Law,” Leg. Br., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 139–147, 2021.
  29. I. Premadasa and A. Khisni, “Extraordinary Legal Remedies By the Prosecutor in Criminal Procedure,” Law Dev. J., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 626, 2021, doi: 10.30659/ldj.2.4.626-633.
  30. T. S. Ahwan, “Penghentian Penyidikan Dan Penuntutan Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Perbandingan Indonesia, Belanda Dan Hongkong,” Jure, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2022.
  31. M. U. D. M. Mudasir Bhat, “The Role of Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System in India : An Analytical Audit,” Indraprastha Law Rev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2020.
  32. A. Jamaludin, “Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif Bagi Pelaku Tindak Pidana dalam Penegakan Hukum Dikejaksaan,” J. Pemuliaan Huk., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2021, doi: 10.30999/jph.v4i2.1453.
  33. H. I. Sakti, “Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Mengenai Kriteria Penyampingan Perkara Tindak Pidana Oleh Jaksa Agung,” Badamai Law J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 237–259, 2021.
  34. A. N. I. N. N. A. M. B. Sugiri, “The Meaning of Waiver of Case for Public Interest (Seponeering) in the Criminal Justice System,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. Rev., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 381–396, 2022.
  35. B. Amal, “Nolle Prosequi Sebagai Inovasi Baru Di Bidang Hukum Acara Pidana,” al-Jinâyah, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 106, 2022.
  36. E. van Sliedregt, “One rule for Them - Selectivity in international criminal law,” Leiden J. Int. Law, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 283–290, 2021, doi: 10.1017/S0922156521000121.
  37. C. da Cruz, “Legal Aspects Of Justice In Criminal Law Enforcement,” Pembaharuan Huk., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 398, 2019.
  38. J. Bellin, “The Changing Role of the American Prosecutor,” Ohio State J. Crim. Law, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 333, 2020.
  39. A. Woolley and L. Soubise, Prosecutors and Justice : Insights from Comparative Analysis, vol. 42, no. 2. 2020.
  40. B. Krzan, “Admissibility of evidence and international criminal justice,” Rev. Bras. Direito Process. Penal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 161–188, 2021, doi: 10.22197/RBDPP.V7I1.492.
  41. A. B. Hermanto and B. S. Riyadi, “Constitutional law on the discretionary of prosecutor’s power against abuse of power implications of corruption culture in the prosecutor’s office Republic of Indonesia,” Int. J. Criminol. Sociol., vol. 9, no. 16, pp. 763–772, 2020, doi: 10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.71.
  42. L. Adiguna, “The Prosecutor’s Authority to Conduct a Criminal Investigation Based on The Government Administration Law,” Adm. Environ. Law Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2021, doi: 10.25041/aelr.v2i1.2214.
  43. F. M. Nelson, “Due Process Model Dan Restorative Justice Di Indonesia,” J. Huk. Pidana Kriminoplogi, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 92–112, 2020.
  44. S. Rahardjo, Membedah Hukum Progresif, 3rd ed. Jakarta: Kompas, 2008.
  45. S. Rahardjo, Penegakan Hukum Progresif. Jakarta: Kompas, 2010.
  46. A. M. Dewantara, “Implementation of Progressive Law in Enforcement of Environmental Law in Indonesia: The Current Problems and Future Challenges,” Indones. J. Environ. Law Sustain. Dev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 237–264, 2022.