Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 1/17
201
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
* Hea d of Sub Division for Monitoring, Division of
Coopera tion for Foreign Legal Affairs, Bur eau of
Law a nd Pu bl ic Relat ions, At t orney Gener al ’s
Office, Indonesia.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since prosecution has been realized as
a funda men ta l component of th e crimina l
just ice system in addition t o investigat ion,
judgmen t a nd t he execut ion of th e judge’s
disposition, t he P rosecution Service of th e
Republic of Indonesia also ha s a pivota l role
a n d f u n c t i o n i n t h e I n d o n e s i a n l a wenforcement system. In other words, the
I n d o n e s i a n P r o s e c u t i o n S e r v i c e i s
indispensa ble in th e Indonesian criminal
jus tice system .
This paper t ries to describe concisely th e
role and function of Indonesian prosecutors
in th e crimina l just ice system.
II. ORGAN IZATIONAL STR UCTU RE
AND ROLE OF THE INDONES IAN
PR OSECUTION SE RVICE
A. P o s i tio n wi th in th e Na tio n al
Organizational Structure and Its
Independence and Ne utra li ty
1. P os it io n
The P rosecut ion Service of th e Republic
of Indonesia is a governmen t inst itut ion,
which is separa ted from t he Ministry of
J ust ice and oth er crimina l agencies. This
inst i tut ion h as t he ma in duty to executeth e sta te power in t he field of prosecut ion
a n d ot h e r d u t i e s b a s e d u p on t h e
regulations an d laws and t o ha ve a sha re
in exercising a pa rt of the genera l duty of
government an d th e development in th e
field of law.
THE ROLE AND FU NCTION OF THE IND ONESIAN
P ROSECUTION SE RVICE IN CRIMINAL JU STICE
Ersyiwo Zaim aru*
The Prosecution Service (Kejaksaan) is
composed of one At torney General’s Office,
27 th e High P rosecut ion Offices a nd 296
Distr ict Prosecut ion Offices. The Attorn ey
Gener al Office is located in t he capital of
the Republic of Indonesia, J aka rt a, an d its
terr itorial jur isdiction covers t he terr itory
of th e Republic of In donesia. The High
Pr osecut ion Office covers th e ter rit ory of
th e province and t he Distr ict P rosecut ion
Office covers th e ter r itory of th e distr ict or
th e respec t ive mu nicipa l ity an d or an
adm inistr at ive ci ty. It is clear tha t the
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’s O f fi c e i s t h e
h e a d q u a r t e r s o f t h e I n d o n e s ia n
prosecut ion service.
Fu r t herm ore , pursu an t to Ar t i cl e 7,
pa ra gra ph (1) of Act No. 5/1991, a br an ch
of the District Prosecution Office can beform ed by th e decree of Att orn ey Genera l
after t he Sta te Minister of Administr at ive
Reform has given his approval thereto.
This means t hat a br anch of the District
Pr osecut ion Office is t he lowest level in t he
organizationa l str ucture of the Indonesian
Pr osecut ion Ser vice.
The Indonesian Prosecut ion Service
itself is led by the Attorney Gener al who is
a p p o in t e d a n d d i s m i s s e d b y a n d
responsible to the P residen t of th e Republicof Indonesia. The Att orney Gener al is the
supr eme leader in an d responsible for t he
Pr osecution Ser vice who cont rols over t he
execut ion of th e dut ies and au th ority of th e
service. In condu cting this da ily job, he is
as sisted by one Vice Att orn ey Genera l and
six Deputy Att orn ey Genera ls.
The At torney Genera l and the Vice
At torney General const i tute a uni ty of
l e a d e r s h i p com p o n e n t s . Al l D e p u t y
At torney Generals are the components
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 2/17
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 3/17
203
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
Indones i a . I t can be sa i d t h a t eve ry
Indonesian public prosecut or m ust sta nd
by their governm ent a nd th eir st ate.
B . Ap p o in tme n t a n d Tr ain in g of
Publ ic Prosecutors and the
Guarantee of Their Status
1. Ap p oi n tm e n t
As men tioned before t ha t is st ipulated
in Art icle 9 of the Act No. 5/1991, in order
for one t o be appoint ed a public prosecut or,
he sha l l have to fu l f i l l t he fo l lowing
requirements:
(1) be an Indonesian Citizen;
(2) be pious to th e One Almighty God;( 3 ) b e l o y a l t o P a n c a s i l a ( s t a t e
p h i l o s o p h y ) a n d t h e 1 9 4 5
Constitution;
(4) not be an ex-member of th e bann ed
I n d o n e s ia C om m u n i s t P a r t y,
including the mass organizat ions
th ereof or n ot be a person direct ly
i n v o l v e d i n t h e “C o u n t e r -
R e v ol u t i on a r y M ov e m e n t o f
S e p t e m b e r 3 0 t h / I n d o n e s i a
Communist Party” or other banned
organizations;
(5) be a civil servan t;
(6) hold a un iversity degree in law;
(7) be at least 25 years of age;
(8) be aut horitative, honest, just a nd n ot
beha ve disgra cefully; an d
(9) pass t he examina tion of the education
an d tr ain ing for th e skill profession
of Public Prosecutor.
Those requirement s a bove ar e verifiedin a s election process t ha t is conducted by
th e Bur eau of Personn el Affai rs of th e
Attorney General’s Office.
Prosecution service has recruited legal
pers onn el within t he pr osecution ser vice.
They must be law school gra dua tes an d
pass th e prosecut or pre-service tr aining
organ ized by the tra ining center in J aka rt a.
Every year, th e tra ining cent er pr oduces
a b o u t 2 0 0 n e w p u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r s .
Recent ly, th ere a re about 5 ,000 publ ic
prosecut ors, who serve prosecut ion. Tha t
n u m b e r a l s o i n c l u d e s c i v i l a n d
adm inistra tive law enforcement.
2 . Tr ain in g a n d th e Gu a ra n te e o f
Pu blic Prosecu tors Status
The Centr e for E ducation and Training
ha s the du ty to execut e the education an d
t r a i n i n g i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o f t h e
Ind onesia n P rosecut ion Ser vice by virt ue
of law a nd r egu l a t i on an d t he po l icy
deter mined by th e Att orney Genera l. This
centr e is a component in support of the duty
and function of the prosecution service,while is un der a nd dir ectly responsible to
th e Att orn ey Genera l.
Educat ion and t ra ining programs for
personnel of the prosecution service that
is organ ized by th e centre consists of Pre-
Service an d In-Service progra ms t ha t can
be seen in Table 1.
In add ition t o th e inform at ion of Table
1, in-service pr ogra ms cons ist of tr ain ing
p r o gr a m s o n g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i ve ,
s t r u c t u r a l , f u n c t i o n a l a n d t e c h n i c a le d u c a t i o n , a n d t r a i n i n g f o r p u b l i c
p r o s e c u t i o n c a n d i d a t e s i s a k i n d o f
functiona l tr aining program . This technical
e d u ca t i on a n d t r a i n in g p r o gr a m m a y
cons ist of tr ain ing of Int ellectu al Pr operty
Right s, law enforcement in criminal cases,
a n d l a w e n f o r c e m e n t i n c i v i l a n d
adm inistr at ive cases, intelligence activities,
e t c . T h i s k ind of t r a i n i ng can be an
appropr i a t e so lu t ion to overcome the
problems of insufficient qualified publicprosecut ors dealing with new crimes which
seem more sophisticat ed an d organized.
The goal of fun ctional edu cation a nd
t r aining programs i s s t rengthen ing th e
skills an d pr ofessiona l capacities of public
prosecutors as required by government
regulat ion. Fur ther more, the technical
program s will give a bett er opportunity for
a n y q u a l i f i e d p u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r a n d
administrat ive personnel to acquire the
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 4/17
204
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
kn owledge and technical skills in order to
impr ove the objectiveness an d efficiency in
carr ying out th eir dut ies, especially for new
pr oblems faced by P rosecution Ser vice of
th e Republic of Indonesia.
Pa rt icipation for every pr ogram is basedon a ssignmen t. A selection t eam considers
what is expected of those par ticipant s a fter
th ey finish their t ra ining, so th at th ey can
impr ove their a bility to achieve a bett er
career pos i t ion and a br igh te r fu ture .
Therefore , t he educa t ion and t ra in ing
progra ms a re th e stra tegic way to get th e
capable a nd skillful public prosecut ors in
h a n d l i n g ca s e s . I t ca n b e n o t e d t h e
guar an t ee of hav ing a br igh t fu tu re i s
att ending the series arr anged programs.
C. P r o fe s s ion a l E th ic s o f In d o n e s ia n
Prosecutors
The ideal figure of an Indonesian pu blic
prosecut or is a person who holds or reflects
the va lues of the Prosecut ion Serv ice
ma xims called Satya , Adhy a nd Wicaksan a
(Integr ity, Mat ur ity an d Wisdom). This
ma xim which is called Tri Kram a Adhyaksa
or Indonesian Pr osecution Service doctrine,
was st ipulat ed by the Att orney Gener al’s
Decree No. KEP -030/J A/3/1988 on Mar ch
23, 1988.
Pursuant to Art ic le 8 , paragraph (4)
of Act No. 5/1991, in execut ing its dut y and
au th ori ty, the pr osecution s ervice sha l l
always a ct by virt ue of th e law an d withdue observa nce of th e n orm s of religion,
good ma nn ers a nd morality, and sha ll also
be obligated to delve int o the living values
of hu ma nity, law a nd justice in t he society.
Moreover, public prosecutors sh all institut e
a prosecut ion on the be l i e f t ha t t he i r
prosecut ion is based upon sufficient legal
mea ns of pr oof. Accord ing t o Ar ticle 184,
paragraph (1) of Act No. 8/1981, legal
mea ns of proof shall be th e test imony of
w i t nes se s , t e s t i m ony o f t he expe r t s ,d o c u m e n t s , t h e i n d i c a t i o n , a n d t h e
test imony of th e accused .
As st at ed in Art icle 11, par agr aph (1) of
A c t N o . 5 / 1 9 9 1 , u n l e s s d e t e r m i n e d
o t h e r w i s e b y v i r t u e o f t h e l a w , t h e
Indonesian publ ic prosecutor may not
concurr ent ly become a businessma n or a
legal a dviser or do anoth er job which can
influen ce th e dign ity of his/her office. The
violation of th is sta tem ent , according to
Art icle 13, para gra ph (1), section c, sha ll
Partic ipant
Candidat e for Civil Servant in
Pr osecution Service
– Official Echelons V & IV
– Fun ctional Official
Official E chelon II I
Official E chelon I I
Official E chelon I
Fu nctional Official
Structural & Functional Officials
KINDS OF ED UCATION AND TRAINING PR OGRAMS
Kind of Educa tion an d Trainin g
Program
Pre-service Training
Genera l Administr at ive
Structural
a. Administra tive Staff & Leader F irst
Level
b. Middle Level
c. High Level
Fu nctiona l Tra ining (Non Stra ta )
Technical Tra ining
Source: Rasm in Saleh, “The Edu cat ion an d Tra ining of Ind onesia Pu blic Pr osecut ion
Service”, un published, p. 18.
Table 1
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 5/17
205
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
resu l t i n t he pub l i c p rosecu t o r be i ng
di shonour ab ly d i smissed f rom h i s /her
office. The oth er r egulations relat ed to th e
p r o f e s s i o n a l e t h i c s o f I n d o n e s i a n
Prosecutors can be found in Code of Civil
Servan t Et hics and several acts concerning
th e dut y, aut hority an d function of public
prosecutors in the Indones ian jus t i ce
system.
III. INVESTIGATION
A. In v e s t ig a tiv e Au th o ri ty a n d
Methodology
Arcitle 6, para gra ph (1) of Act N o. 8/1981
on Cr iminal Pr ocedur e (KUHAP) stat estha t an investigator shall be:
(1) an official of th e st a te p olice of th e
Republic of Indonesia ; and
(2) a cer ta in official of th e civil ser vice
who is gra nt ed special aut hority by
law.
Refering to this statement, in practice,
the police official is an investigator for
general crimes such as m ur der, theft a nd
robbery.The pu blic prosecut or is also aut horized
to be the investigator for special crimes
such as the corruption cases (Act No. 3/
1 9 7 1 o n E r a d i c a t i o n o f C o r r u p t i o n
Offences). It is sa nctioned by Art icle 284,
p a r a g r a p h ( 2) of Ac t on C r i m i n a l
Pr ocedur e, which st at es:
. . . al l cases shal l be subject to the
provision of this Act, with tem porar y
except ion for special pr ovisions on
crimina l procedur e as refered to incerta in acts, un til th ey ar e amended
an d or ar e declared to no longer be in
effect.
Another regulat ion which sanctions t ha t
s t a t e m e n t a b o v e , i s Ar t i cl e 1 7 o f
Government Regula t ion No. 27 /1983 ,
which m ent ions t ha t pu blic prosecut ors
and certain off ic ials have authori ty as
investigat ors of special crimes . It mea ns
there are several special invest igators
b e s i d e s p u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r s i n t h e
Indonesian investigation system, inter alia,
na val officers for Fish ery a nd Exclusive
Economic Zone offences; and civil serva nt s
of Customs and Excise , Tax Divis ion,
Forestry Officer, etc.
An investigator as regulated in Article
7, paragr aph (1) of Act No. 8/1981 sha ll be
competent, int er alia, to car ry out ar rest,
deten tion, sear ch and seizure of docum ent s;
t o s u m m o n a p e r s o n t o b e h e a r d o r
examined as a suspect or a witness; to take
oth er r esponsible acts in a ccorda nce with
law. In th is regar d, th e investigat or sha ll
prepa re m inut es of the execut ion of actsan d th en sh all deliver t he dossier of case
to the pu blic pr osecut or. The delivery of
th e dossier sha ll be accomplished as follows
[Article 8, paragra ph (3) of Act N o. 8/1981]:
(1) At t he first sta ge, th e invest igat or
sha ll deliver only th e dossier of case.
(2) Where th e investigation is deemed to
ha ve been completed, th e investigator
sha l l cede respons ib i l i t y for the
suspect an d th e physical evidence to
th e public prosecut or.
However, ther e is not a str ict s an ction
against the investigator who delivers t he
dossier of a case la te a nd never completes
th e ret ur ned case. In pra ct ice, a public
p r o s e c u t o r i n c h a r g e w i l l a s k t h a t
i n v e s t i g a t o r ’s s u p e r i o r t o or d e r t h e
completion of the case as soon as possible.
B . In s tru c t io n a n d Su p e rv i s io n o f
the P olice , and the Cooperationbetween the Publ ic Prosecutor
and the Police
As we know, the ro le o f the publ i c
prosecut or can be seen clear ly from th e
accepta nce of the case dossier from t he
police officer. Then , th e public pr osecutor
will compose the results of the criminal
investigat ion t o be the criminal prosecut ion
against the defendant . In the Indonesian
crimina l jus tice system , a public prosecutor
within seven days shal l be obligated to
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 6/17
206
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
inform th e investigat or in cha rge wheth er
the resul ts are complete or incomplete.
Where t he r esults a re evidently incomplete,
th e public prosecut or sha ll send th e dossier
back to th e investigat or accompa nied by an
instr uction on what must be done to make
it complet e. Then , within 14 days after
receiving t he dossier, the investigator sha ll
be obligated to retu rn th e dossier to the
public pr osecutor.
As ment ioned before, ther e is no a st rict
sanct ion against the invest igators who
neglect th eir obligation to complete th e case
with in the mentioned period. In th at case,
a good inform al or per sonal r elationshipbetween the publ ic prosecutor and the
invest igat or (the St at e Police Officer) can
be seen on the resul ts of invest igat ion.
Conver sely, the public prosecut or in char ge
will ask his/her su perior or t he head of th e
Distr ict Pr osecution Office to cont act t he
i nves t i ga t o r ’s su pe r i or t o fu l fi l l h i s
obligation soon. Alter na tely, th e pu blic
pr osecutor will never give or a ppr ove th e
ex t ens i on o f fu r t he r de t en t i on i n t he
investigat ion period. It can be deemed asan effective wa y for public prosecut ors to
supervise what t he investigat ors h ave done
till the end of the deten tion p eriod.
Although the public prosecutor is able
to retur n t he incomplete dossier to the
i n v e s t i g a t o r a c com p a n i e d b y t h e
instr uction, however, it can not be sa id tha t
th e public prosecut or h as su pervised the
s t a t e po l i ce of f i cer in conduct ing the
inves tiga tion ver tically. Accordingly, both
th e public prosecut or an d the police officert o g e t h e r h a v e p r e p a r e d a s u c c e s s f u l
investigat ion. It must be noted a successful
invest igat ion shal l determine the next
sta ge of law en forcement resu lts.
C. Ro le o f P u bl ic P r o se c u to rs in
Arrest ing and De taining the
Suspect
Pu rsu an t t o Art icle 109, par agra ph (1)
of the Act on Crimina l Pr ocedur e, where
an investigator ha s begun th e investigation
of an event, which const itut es a n offence,
th e invest igat or sh al l inform th e public
pr osecutor of th is fact. Tha t inform at ion
includes the ar rest a nd detent ion of th e
suspect, which h ave been condu cted by th e
investigator.
The invest igator on a person who is
str ongly presumed t o have committ ed an
offense based on sufficient pr el imina ry
evidence shal l i ssue an ar rest war ra nt .
That ar rest can be made for a t most one
day, and a person suspected of having
commit t ed a m isdemeanor sha l l not be
ar rested except when without valid r easons
he h as fai led two consecut ive t imes t ocomply with va lid summons (Art icles 17 to
19 of Act No. 8/1981).
F u r t h e r m o r e , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f
investigation as well as pr osecut ion a nd
tr ial proceedings, th e investigat or instead
of the pu blic prosecut or an d th e judge at
tr ial, ha s the au thority to a detain a su spect
w h o i s s t r o n g l y p r e s u m e d t o h a v e
comm itt ed a n offence ba sed on s ufficient
evidence. It is applied on cases where there
a re c i r cum s t ances w h i ch g i ve r i s e t oconcern tha t t he suspec t wi l l escape ,
dam age or destr oy physical evidence an d/
or repea t the offence. According to Art icle
24, para grap h (1) of the Act on Cr iminal
Pr ocedur e, a warr an t of detent ion issued
by an investiga tor sh all only be valid for
at m ost 20 days. It ma y be extended by a
competent public prosecut or for at most 40
days , i f an inves t iga t ion ha s n ot been
completed yet. After the sa id 60-day per iod,
th e investigat or mu st release tha t suspectfrom deten tion for t he s ak e of law.
The r ole of th e pu bl ic pr osecutor in
ar rest ing an d detaining a su spect which
a r e c o n d u c t e d b y t h e p o l i c e o r a n
invest igator, is merely to super vise th e
validi ty of th e invest igat or’s a ct ivit ies
concern ing invest igat ion. In fact , th e
i n v e s t i g a t o r s s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e
th emselves for what ever th ey have done.
In a ddition, a susp ect sha ll ha ve th e right
to deman d compensa tion for t he h ar m of
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 7/17
207
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
ha ving been arr ested, deta ined or other
acts, without rea son foun ded on law or due
to a mista ke with r egard t o his identity or
to t he app l i cab le l aw (see Ar t i cl e 95 ,
pa ragr aph (1) of Act N o. 8/1981).
IV. INDICTMENT
A. Author ized Agency to Indic t and
the Methodology
As men tioned before, t he P rosecution
Ser vice of th e Repu blic of In donesia is a
sole agency which sh all execut e th e sta te
powers in the fie ld of pr osecut ion. I t
mean s, ther e is no private pr osecut ion in
th e Indonesian criminal just ice system. Inaddit ion, the Prosecution Service shal l
h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c a r r y o u t t h e
pr osecution of anyone wh o is accus ed of
comm it t in g an offence wi thin a publ ic
prosecut or’s jur isdiction by br inging th e
case before a competen t cour t to adjudicat e
accompan ied by a bill of ind ictm ent .
After th e public prosecutor has received
or accepted the returned and complete
dossier case from th e investigator, he sh all
prompt ly determine whether or n ot t he
doss i er m ee t s t he r equ i r em en t s t o be
brought before a competen t cour t. Where
he ha s the opinion th at a prosecut ion ma y
b e c o n d u c t e d f r o m t h e r e s u l t s o f
investigation, he sha ll prepa re a s soon a s
possible a bill of indictm ent . Pu rsu an t to
A r t i c l e 1 4 1 o f t h e A c t o n C r i m i n a l
Procedure, a public prosecutor may effect
th e joinder of cases an d cover t hem in one
bill of indictment , if at th e sa me t ime oralmost simulta neously he receives severa l
dossiers of cases on:
(1) several offences comm itted by th e
sam e person an d the interest of th e
e x a m i n a t i o n d o e s n o t p o s e a n
obsta cle t o joinder ;
(2) s e v e r a l j o i n d e r s w h i c h a r e
interr elated one with th e oth er; or
(3 ) seve ra l o f f ences w h i ch a re no t
interr elated but which do ha ve some
conn ection one anoth er, such th at the
joinder is necessa ry for pur poses of
examination.
O n ot h e r h a n d , w h e r e a p u b l i c
p r o s e c u t o r r e c e i v e s a c a s e d o s s i e r
containing several offences committed by
s e v e r a l s u s p e c t s , h e m a y c o n d u c t a
prosecut ion a gainst each of th e defenda nt
sepa ra tely. Ther efore, a public prosecutor
ha s th e au th ority to decide freely wheth er
a case will be separa ted or not.
B . De g re e o f Ce r ta in ty Re g ar din gGuilt Required to Indict a
Suspect
In Indonesian criminal procedure, th ere
ar e thr ee kinds of examina tion pr ocedur es,
i.e.:
(1) Ordinar y,
(2) Summa ry, and
(3) Express, which cons ists of procedur es
for examinat ion of minor offences an d
procedu res for t raffic violat ion cases .
The ordinar y examinat ion procedures
ar e r egulat ed in Articles 152 to 202 of Act
No. 8/1981 on crimin al pr ocedu re , Articles
203 to 204 for summ ar y procedur e, Art icles
205 to 210 for minor offences, and Art icles
211 to 216 for t he exam inat ion pr ocedur es
of tr a ffic violat ion cases .
Ordinary procedure is the main legal
procedure that is implemented in every
compet ent cour t. In this procedur e, after
receiving th e case dossier, which mu st beaccompa nied by a Bill of Indictmen t from
th e pu blic prosecut or, the presiding judge
at t he cour t sha ll determine th e trial date.
Moreover, the presiding judge sh all also
order th e public prosecut or to summ on the
accused an d witnesses to at tend t he t rial.
T h e r e i s a s p e c i a l t y a m o n g t h o s e
examination procedures above where a
public prosecut or sha ll never be in volved
directly in th e examina tion, i.e., the express
p r o ce d u r e s . I n t h i s p r o ce d u r e , a s
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 8/17
208
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
men tioned in Art icle 205, pa ra graph (2) of
Act N o. 8/1981, the in vestigat or on beh alf
of public prosecut or sh all with in th ree da ys
after completion of the da te m inut es of the
examination, present th e accused t ogether
wi th t he p hysical evidence, witn esses ,
exper t s an d/or in t e rpr e t e rs before t he
cour t . I t i s a li t t le bit d i fferen t to the
summ ar y procedure in tha t th e auth orized
official whose obligation is to present the
a c c u s e d t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d
witnesses, expert s, expert s, interpr eters
a n d p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e , i s a p u b l i c
pr osecutor. It is similar to th e ord inar y
procedur e in tha t t he pu blic prosecut or ism o r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e s e n t i n g t h e
accused required witnesses, experts and
inter preter s before a competen t cour t.
The criteria to decide whether a criminal
ca s e s h a l l b e e xa m i n e d i n s u m m a r y
procedure, is th at a case does not fall under
th e pr ovisions of Minor Offences a nd for
which th e evidence and app licat ion of law,
an d a ccord ing to th e public prosecutor in
charge, i s s imple and s t raight forward.
Cases with a pena l ty of a t mos t th r eemonth s’ imprisonment or confinement an d
a fine of not m ore t ha n 7500 ru piahs (about
300 yen) sha l l be examined in express
procedures.
In p repa ring a bill of indictmen t, which
sha ll be dated a nd signed by the public
prosecutor in charge , i t sha l l con ta in
(Ar t icle 143 of Act No. 8/1981):
(1) th e full na me, place of birt h, a ge or
date of birth, gender, nat ionali ty,
addr ess, religion an d occupat ion of th e suspect; an d
(2) an accu r a t e , cl ea r a nd com pl e t e
explan at ion of th e offence of which
accusa tion is made, stat ing the time
an d p lace where th e offence was
committed.
A bil l of indictm ent which does n ot
sa tisfy the pr ovision above sha ll be void for
th e sake of law.
C. E x e rc i s e of D i scr e tio n in
Prosecut ion
A public prosecutor m ay n ot prosecut e
a n a c cu s e d w h e n h e h a s f ou n d t h r e e
technical circumst an ces an d one factor of
political r eason (Cf. Andi Ham zah an d RM.
S u r a c h m a n , “T h e R o l e a P u b l i c
Pr osecut or”, paper for In donesian -Ja pan
joint seminar held in J akar ta on J anua ry
2-24, 1992, pp. 30-33), i.e.:
(1) th e fact ha s insu fficient evidence;
(2) the fact does not const itut e an offence;
(3) it is for t he int erest of law; and
(4) political reas on.
Whenever th e public prosecut or decidesto cease or t o suspend th e prosecut ion
becaus e of ins ufficient evidence or it h as
becom e c l ea r t ha t s a i d even t d i d no t
const itut e an offence or th e case ha s been
closed in th e int erest of law, th e pu blic
prosecut or sh all set this fort h in a written
dec i s i on . A ccor d i n g t o A r t i c l e 140 ,
par agra ph (2) subpa ra graph b of Act No.
8/1981, the cont ent of sa id writt en decision
sha ll be made kn own to the suspect an d if
he i s de ta ined , tha t suspec t should be
released immedia tely. Moreover, th e copies
of the written decision m ust be sent t o the
sus pect or his fam i ly or legal counsel ,
official of th e sta te h ouse of deten tion, the
investigat or and th e judge. If th ereafter
n e w c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d p r o v i d e
sufficient evidence, the public prosecutor
ma y condu ct a prosecut ion a gainst t he
suspect.
In addition, pu rsu an t t o Art icle 183 of th e Criminal P rocedure Code, a judge shall
not impose a pena lty upon a per son except
when th ere ar e at least t wo legal means of
p r o o f e n a b l i n g h i m t o c o m e t o t h e
con v i ct i on t h a t a n offe n c e h a s t r u l y
occur red a nd t ha t t he accused is guilty of
committ ing it. Therefore, if th ere ar e two
am ong five legal mean s of proofs, norma lly,
th e public prosecut or sha ll prosecut e th e
a c c u s e d b e f o r e a c o m p e t e n t c o u r t .
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i n t e r e s t o f l a w a s
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 9/17
209
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
mentioned above, including lapse of time,
double jeopar dy or n ebis in idem, a nd t he
deat h of th e accus ed, sha ll be considered
w h e n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t o
prosecut e th e accused.
Pr ior t o 1961, every public prosecut or in
Ind onesia was a llowed by th e law to drop
th e case even th ough t her e was sufficient
evidence to war ra nt a conviction. Then,
t h i s p o w e r w a s a b o l i s h e d i n 1 9 6 1 .
However, since tha t time only the Att orn ey
Genera l has been allowed to drop a case
for political r eas ons or for t he int eres t of
law. Hence, a public prosecut or wh o wishes
to ut i l ize this power ha s to request t heAtt orn ey General t o determine it, which is,
unfortunately, rarely exercised.
Although th e au th ority to exercise th e
d i scre t ionary power i s no t s t ipu la t ed
explicitly in a rt icles of the Act Nu mber 8/
1981 (KUHAP), th e elucida tion of Ar ticle
77 KUHAP infers t his power which is called
th e opport un ity principle. Fortuna tely, th is
pr inciple ha s been endorsed by Art icle 32,
pa rag raph (4 ) o f A c t N o . 5 / 1991 on
Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia.
D . P l e a B a rg a in i n g
In t he Indones i an c r i m i na l j u s t i ce
system, plea bar gaining has n ever been
kn own clear ly. To decide whet her a n
accused is guilty or n ot, is the au th orit y of
th e judges at tr ial. However th e judges at
t r ia l shal l impose a proper pu nishment
based on sufficient legal means of proof,
na mely at lea st t wo legal mea ns of proof,which convinc ing ly es t ab l i sh th a t t h e
accused ha s t ru ly committ ed an offence.
A public prosecutor in instituting the
p rosecu t i on , o f cou r se , w i l l f i r s t be
concern ed a bout th e su fficiency of th e
evidence to esta blish a pr ima facie case or
t ha t t he ev idence t ha t w ou l d w ar ra n t
convict ion. Ther e are severa ls factors
usu ally taken into considera t ion before
deciding to prosecute such as the gravity
an d circums ta nces of the offence, an d th e
personal factors re lated to the al leged
offender, inter alia , the char acter, th e age,
an y menta l il lness or str ess affecting th e
offender a nd t he r elationship of th e victim
to the offender. After a p ublic pr osecut or
ha s gath ered th e prima facie evidence, he
decides wheth er t o prosecut e or n ot.
V. TRIAL P ROCE ED INGS
A. P r o of o f Cr imin a l Fa c ts
As st at ed pr eviously, th ere a re five legal
means of proof in Indonesian cr iminal
procedur e, i.e., the t estimony of witnesses,
the t es t imony of exper t s , document s ,
i nd i ca t i on , and t he t e s t i m ony o f t heaccused [Art icle 184, pa ra gra ph (1) of Act
No. 8/1981]. The t est imony of a witn ess is
what the witness has st ated a t tr ial, which
is similar t o the test imony of the expert and
th e accused, i.e., what the expert a nd t he
accused ha ve sta ted at tr ial. A docum ent
as a legal mea ns of pr oof sh ould be ma de
un der a n oath of office or str engthen ed by
an oat h. An indicat ion is an a ct, event or
c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h b e c a u s e o f i t s
consisten cy whet her bet ween one an d th e
other or with the offence itself, signifies
th at th e offence has occur red a nd who the
per pet ua tor is (see Art icles 184 to 189 of
Act No. 8/1981).
In addi t ion, th e indicat ion as a legal
mea ns of proof sha ll only be obta ined from
t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e
documen t and t he t estimony of the accused.
The evident iary st ren gth of the indicat ion
is evalua ted by th e judges at tr ial wiselyan d pru dent ly a ft e r those judges have
accurately and careful ly conducted an
e x a m i n a t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r
cons cien ce. In pra ct ice , every pu bl ic
p r o s ecu t o r a l wa y s t r i e s t o h a v e t h e
indication in proving th e accused guilty. In
o ther words , every publ i c p rosecutor
always tr ies to obta in th ree or more legal
mea ns of proof in p roving t he gu ilt of the
accused.
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 10/17
210
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
However, if th e cour t is of th e opinion
tha t f rom t he r esul t s of examinat ion a t
tr ial, the guilty of the accused h as n ot been
lega l ly and convinc ing ly proven , the
accused sha l l be dec l a red acqu i t t ed .
Moreover, if the cour t is of th e opinion tha t
th e act of the accused h as been pr oven but
such a ct does not cons titu te a n offence, all
cha rges aga i n s t t he accused sha l l be
dismissed. In th ese cases, i f th e public
prosecut or is not sa tisfied with th e opinion
of th e court (i.e., dismissal or acquit ta l), he
ma y appeal to th e compet ent H igh Cour t.
F u r t h e r m o r e , h e m a y r e q u e s t f o r a
cassa tion t o the Supr eme Cour t, if he is notsat i sfied with th e High Court decis ion
affirming the District Court decision.
According the explanation above, the
competent Distr ict Cour t ma y make th ree
kinds of decision upon th e a ccused, i.e.:
(1)Punishment;
(2) Acquitta l;
(3) Dismissal of all cha rges aga inst t he
accused.
B. Cooperat ion for Speedy Tr ia lIn pur suit of Art icle 4, para graph (2) of
th e Act on th e Basic of Judicial P ower, the
judicial adm inistr at ion sh all be condu cted
simp ly, speedily an d economically. Thes e
pr inciples mu st fulfill the expecta tion of all
seeker s of just ice. As we rea lized, they do
no t need a com pl i ca t ed exam i na t i on
procedure th at may ta ke a long time and,
sometimes, it should be cont inued by a n
heir.
Cooperat ion among the invest igator,public prosecutor and the judges at trial
an d also each superior, in pr actice, has sped
up t he examina tion pr ocess. Moreover, the
role of the a ccused in sh owing the requ ired
evidence to the competent official of th e law
enforcement agenc ies , i s a l so deemed
an oth er way for a speedy trial.
C. S e c u rin g Ap p ro p ria te S e n te n c e
I n p r a c t i c e , t h e r e a r e q u i t e m a n y
sentences passed by judges which have
been considered n ot in accorda nce with th e
sen se of just ice in Indonesia n society. The
ordina ry people consider th ose sent ences
so l en i en t t ha t t hey m i gh t l ead t o an
i nc rease i n c r i m e , even t hough such
ar gument h as not been proven. Moreover,
people do not wan t t o un derst an d why it
h a s o c c u r r e d i n t h e I n d o n e s i a n l a w
enforcement system.
Secur ing an a ppropriate senten ce is not
only condu cted by th e judges at tr ial but
also by the public prosecut or, invest igatoran d other officials of crimina l agencies. An
appropriate sentence should be made on
an a ppropriat e request of cha rges against
th e defenda nt , and it is based on effective
investigationa ry results. In other words,
an inappr opriat e sentence is merely caused
by hu ma n err ors which ar e made by th ose
law enforcement officials . Ther efore,
providing t he pr oper t ra ining for th ose
officials i s necessar y to redu ce h um an
err ors in sent encing.
D. S u p e rv i sio n o v e r th e F a ir
Application o f Law
Similar to th e above-described, people
often a sk judges why th ey do not per form
th e sam e justice in sent encing offender s
comm itting the sa me crime under similar
c ir cum s t a nces . Accord i n g t o J u s t i ce
Soerjono (see paper in In donesia-J apa n
J oint Seminar , Ja kar ta , J anu ary 20-24,
1992, pp. 6-8), there are several factorswhich might inf luence the decis ion of
judges in pas sing sen ten ces, i.e.:
(1) Nat ur e of Crime;
(2) Defendan t’s Cha ra cter ;
(3) Commu nity response toward crime;
and
(4)Chance.
C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t j u d g e s , p u b l i c
prosecutors, investigators and other law
enforcement o ff ic ia l s a r e govern men t
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 11/17
211
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
officials wh o should obey govern men ta l
disciplinar y regula tions, th e role of th eir
respective superiors in super vising over the
fair applicat ion of law is really import an t.
Pu blic sup ervision t ha t is car ried out by
the In donesian people through the ma ss
media i s deemed another inst ru ment t o
control the fair applicat ion of the law.
Moreover , t he reques t fo r appea l and
c a s s a t i o n i s a p i v o t a l i n s t r u m e n t t o
super vise fairness, which is t he r ight of the
public prosecut or an d/or th e defenda nt .
In conduct ing t r ia l proceedings, the
pub l i c p rosecu t o r i n cha rge sha l l be
o b l i g a t e d t o p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t ,w i t n e s s e s , e x p e r t s a n d a l l e v i d e n c e
concerning the defendant who is accused
of ha ving comm itted a crime. If in fact the
accused or th e wi tnesses wer e l ega l ly
summ oned but failed to be present at trial,
th e examinat ion of the case can not be
cont inued an d th e head judge sha ll order
said per son to be sum moned once aga in for
th e next tr ial session. Usua lly, delay in the
tr ial proceedings may be cau sed by:
(1) The required witnesses not ha vingreceived the su mm ons.
(2) A witness’ inten t to arr ive at t he tr ial
on th e second sum mons . Usu ally, it
is car ried out if th e defenda nt is still
in the detent ion a nd t he witness is
th e victim of the defenda nt .
VI. EXECUTION OF PU NISHMENT
Pu rsu an t to Art icle 270 of the Act on
Crimina l Procedure, which is a lso signifiedby Act No. 5/1991 on P rosecu tion Service
of th e Republic of Indonesia , the execut ion
of pun ishmen t which ha s become fina l and
binding sha ll be car ried out by th e public
prosecutor. For th is purpose, a copy of th e
execut ion of pun ishmen t sh all be sent to
th e public prosecut or by th e clerk. Then ,
th e public pr osecutor sh all send , a copy of
t h e m i n u t e s o n t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e
pun ishment signed by himself, by th e head
o f t h e c o r r e c t i o n a g e n c y a n d b y t h econvic t ed person , to the cour t which
decided th e case in t he first instan ce an d
th e clerk sha ll record it in th e register of
super vision an d observation.
For the purpose of superv i s ion and
observation, in every court there must be
a judge who is given the special duty of
ass i s t ing the head in car ry ing ou t the
super vision and observat ion with regar d to
t he pun i shm en t o f dep r i v i ng l i be r t y .
Therefore, i t is clear th at th e execut or of
pun ishmen t is th e public prosecut or wh ich
is different in civil law enforcemen t. The
executor of civil law is the clerk of th e cour t.
VII. PU BLIC P ROSECUTORS’
INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
Pu blic prosecut ors ar e a lso involved in
th e a ctivities of, inter alia, in t he pr omotion
of legal public awar eness, pr ecau tion as a
measure in secur ing l aw enforcement
policy, precau tion as a mea sur e of security
of the pr in t ed mat t e r c i rcu la t ion , t he
supe rv i s i on o f m ys t i c i sm w h i ch can
endan ger the society and t he s ta te , the
prevention of misuse an d/or blasphemy of
religion an d the r esearch and developmen t
of la w a n d a d m i n is t r a t i ve m a t t e r s .
Additionally, public prosecut ors r epresent
th e sta te or government inside as well as
outside th e cour ts in regards t o nat iona l
just ice policy.
Coping wi th th e pu bl ic prosecut or ’s
involvement in n at iona l justice policy, th e
Pr osecution Ser vice h as five missions, i.e.:
(1) To secur e and defend Pa ncasila a s th eIndonesian philosophy a gainst a ny
a t t e m p t s w h i c h c a n s h a k e t h e
coexisten ce of the society, na tion a nd
state.
(2) Must be capa ble of giving sha pe to
th e legal secur ity, ru le of law, just ice
and t rut h based upon th e law and of
observing t he n orms of religion, good
man ners a nd m ora l ity; an d also be
obl igat ed t o delve into th e l iving
values of hu ma nit y, law a nd jus ticein t he society;
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 12/17
212
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
(3 )Mus t be capab l e o f be i ng fu l l y
involved in th e developmen t process,
in ter a l ia , h av i ng a sha re i n t he
c r e a t i o n o f c o n d i t i o n s a n d
infra s t ru ctur e which su ppor t and
s e c u r e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
developmen t in order to give sha pe
to the just and prosperous society
based upon Pan casila;
(4 )Sa fegua rd i ng and en fo rc i ng t he
author i ty of the government and
state of the Republic of Indonesia;
and
(5) To protect t he int erest of the people
th rough law enforcement.Implementation of those missions are
condu cted by th e Att orn ey Genera l, who is
ass isted by one Vice-Att orney Gener al a nd
six Deput y Att orneys Genera l. It is clear
that Indonesian publ ic prosecutors are
involved n ot only in law en forcemen t but
also in t he implementa tion of th e na tiona l
developmen t progra ms. The involvement
of the Att orn ey Genera l, heads of the H igh
Prosecut ion Off i ces and heads of the
Distr ict P rosecution Offices rela ted t o each
level, as the chiefs of the Committee of
Supervision for General E lections, is a good
example of this ma tt er.
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 13/17
213
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
APPEN DIX A
TOTAL NUMBER OF P ERSONN EL
IN THE INDONES IAN PROSE CUTION SE RVICE
(Augus t 18, 1997)
Region P r o se cu to r Oth e r S ta f f Total
The Attorney General Office (Headquarters) 423 1,709 2,132
Aceh Special Region 124 312 436
Nor th Sumatera 336 619 755
West Sumatera 131 366 497
Riau 132 282 414
J ambi 94 185 279
South Sumatera 187 380 567
Bengkulu 62 123 185Lampung 141 246 387
J akarta Dist r ict Capita l 212 532 744
West J ava 551 1,245 1,796
Centra l J ava 428 1,334 1,762
Yogyakar ta Specia l Region 99 461 560
East J ava 589 1,077 1,666
Wesk Kalimantan 104 203 307
Centra l Kalimantan 88 159 247
South Kalimantan 136 199 335
East Kalimantan 122 118 240
Nor th Sulawesi 101 203 304
Centra l Sulawesi 107 167 274
South East Sulawesi 56 141 197
South Sulawesi 289 568 857
Bali 128 308 436
West Nusa Tenggara 82 208 290
East Nusa Tenggara 107 257 364
Maluku 131 234 365
Irian J aya 87 179 266
East Timor 73 174 247
Secondment 8 0 8
Gran d Total 5,128 11,989 17,117
Sour ce: Bur eau of Personnel Affairs, Office of th e Att orn ey General.
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 14/17
214
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
APPEN DIX B
NU MBER OF GENER AL CRIME CASES
ACCEPTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENE RAL’S OFFICE
(April 1996 – March 1997)
Disposal Stopp in g
Invest igat ion
High Prosecut ing B a ck lo g R ec e ip t To ta l i n S to p pe d B e co m e P e n di ng Ap pr o- In a pp ro -
Office o f 1996 in 1997 1997 Invest iga- Ca se s in 1997 p ria te p ria te
tion
Aceh Specia l Region 545 281 1,826 81 1,264 481 76 5
North Sumatera 2,074 5,550 7,624 130 4,832 2,662 122 8
West Sumatera 560 1,310 1,870 12 1,179 679 9 3
Riau 285 1,539 1,824 13 1,497 314 9 4
J ambi 295 850 1,145 13 832 300 13 –
South Sumatera 1,340 3,632 4,972 8 3,594 1,370 6 2Bengkulu 499 724 1,223 4 659 560 – 4
Lampung 697 1,815 2,512 2 1,723 787 2 –
West Kalimantan 537 1,406 1,943 5 1,300 638 4 1
Centra l Kalimantan 148 815 963 3 831 129 1 2
East Kalimantan 313 2,154 2,467 13 2,198 256 3 10
South Kalimantan 1,376 1,884 3,260 44 1,829 1,387 44 –
West J ava 4,061 9,621 13,682 25 9,560 4,097 19 6
J akar ta Dist r ict Capit al 9,056 5,633 14,689 3 5,356 9,330 – 3
Centra l J ava 1,307 6,162 7,469 32 6,166 1,271 29 3
Yogyakar ta Specia l Region 125 940 1,065 1 925 139 – 1
East J ava 2,109 1,635 3,744 15 1,548 2,181 3 12
North Sulawesi 2,800 1,220 4,020 10 1,050 2,960 2 8Centra l Sulawesi 531 845 1,376 20 798 558 17 3
South East Sulawesi 524 871 1,395 – 1,027 368 – –
South Sulawesi 1,492 3,506 4,998 36 3,223 1,739 1 35
Bali 336 1,559 1,895 30 1,444 421 30 –
West Nusa Tenggara 918 923 1,841 55 889 897 11 44
East Nusa Tenggara 777 1,130 1,907 14 1,032 861 2 12
Maluku 1,047 1,194 2,241 54 1,010 1,177 14 40
Ir ian J aya 170 1,001 1,171 23 974 174 17 6
East Timor 123 371 494 9 293 192 5 4
Tota l 34,045 59,571 93,616 655 57,033 35,928 439 216
Source: Office of th e Deput y Att orney Gener al for Genera l Crime.
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 15/17
215
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
A P
P E N D I X C
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A
L S T R U C T U R E O F T H E
N A T I O N A L
G O V E R N M E N T
P E O P L E ’ S C O N S U L T A T I V E
A
S S E M B L Y
P R E S I D E N T
V I C E
P R E S I D E N T
H O U S E
O F
R E P R E S E N T
A T I V E S
S T A T E A U D I T
B O D Y
C O M M A N D E R - I N
-
C H I E F O F T H E
A R M E D F O R C E S
G O V E R N O R
O F
B A N K I
N D O N E S I A
A T T O R N E Y
G E N E R A L
M I N I S T E R S O F
S T A T E
M I
N I S T E R S O F
P O R T F O L I O S
D E
P A R T M E N T S
C O O R D I N A T I N G
M I N I S T E R S
S U P R E M E A D V I S O R Y
C O U N C I L
S U P R E M E
C O U R T
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 16/17
216
RESOU RCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 53
A P
P E N D I X D
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A
L S T R U C T U R E O F T H E
P U B L I C P R O S
E C U T I O N S E R V I C E
D E P U T Y A . G .
F O R A D V A N C E M E N T
D E P U T Y A
. G .
F O R I N T E L L I G
E N C E
A F F A I R S
D E P U T Y A . G .
F O R G E N E R A L C R I M E
D E P U T Y A . G .
F O R
S P E C I A L C R I M E S
D E P U T Y A . G .
F O R
C
I V I L A N D A D M I N I S T R A T I V E
A F F A I R S
D E P U T Y A . G
.
F O R S U P E R V I S
I O N
P L A N N I N G
B U R E A U
D I R E C T O R A
T E F O R
P O L I T I C A L A F F A I R S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R C R I M E S
A G A I N S T T H E S T A T E A N D
P U B L I C O F F I C E R
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
E C O N O M I C C R I M E S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
C I V I L C A S E S
I N S P E C T O R
F O R
P E R S O N N E L
A N D
G E N E R A L T
A S K
G E N E R A L
B U R E A U
D I R E C T O R A
T E F O R
E C O N O M I C A N D
F I N A N C E A
F F A I R S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
C R I M E S A G A I N S T
L I F E A N D P R O P E R T Y
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
C O R R U P T I O N C R I M E S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
A D M I N I S T R A T I V E C A S E S
I N S P E C T I O N F O
R I M A G E
E Q U I P M E N T
A N D
D E V E L O P M E N T
P R O J E C T
P E R S O N N E L
B U R E A U
D I R E C T O R A
T E F O R
S O C I A L A N D
C U L T U R A L A F F A I R S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
O T H E R G E N E R A L
C R I M E S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
S U B V E R S I O N C R I M E S
D I R E C T O R A T E F O R
R E H A B I L I T A T I O N A N D
P R O T E C T I O N O F
C I V I L R I G H T S
I N S P E C T O R
F O R I N T E L L I G E N C E
E D U C A T I O N
A N D
T R A I N I N G C E
N T R E
R E S E A R C H A N D
D E V E L O P M E N T C E N T R E
L A W I N
F O R M A T I O N
C E N T R E
I N T E L L I G E N C E
O P E R A T I O N C E N T R E
L E G A L I N F O R M A
T I O N
A N D C R I M I N A L
S T A T I S T I C S C E N
T R E
F I N A N C E
B U R E A U
D I R E C T O R A
T E F O R
I N T E L L I G E N C E
P R O D U C T
A N D E Q U I P
M E N T
I N S P E C T O R
F O R
G E N E R A L C R
I M E S
E Q U I P M E N T
B U R E A U
I N S P E C T I O N F O R
S P E C I A L
C A S E S C I V I L C A S E S A N D
A D M I N I S T R A T I V
E C A S E S
L E G A L A N D
P U B L I C R E L A T I O N S
B U R E A U S
E C R E T A R I A T
S E C R E T A R I A T
S E C R E T A R I A T
S E C R E T A R I A T
S E C R E T A R I A T
S E C R E T A R I A T
S T A F F O F T H E A . G .
S T A F F O F S
P E C I A L I S T S
/ E x p
e r t i s e
A T T O N E Y G E N E R A L ( A . G . )
V I C E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L
H I G H
/ P R O V I N C I A L
P U B L I C
P R O S E C U T I O N
P U B L I C P R O
S E C U T I O N O F F I C E
8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ago-law-1991 17/17
217
107TH INTERN ATIONAL TRAININ G COURSE
PARTICIPANTS’ PAPE RS
A P
P E N D I X E
D E T E N T I O N P
E R I O D A C C O R D I N G T O
A C T N O . 8 / 1 9 8 1 O N C R I M
I N A L P R O C E D U R E
D e t e n t i o n W a r r a n t
I s s u e d b y
I n
v e s t i g a t o r ( a r t . 2 4 )
P u b l i c P r o s e c u t o r
( a
r t . 2 5 )
P r e s i d i n g J u d g e a t
D
i s t r i c t C o u r t ( a r t . 2 6 )
P r e s i d i n g J u d g e a t H i g h
C
o u r t ( a r t . 2 7 )
J u s t i c e o f t h e S u p r e m e
C
o u r t ( a r t . 2 8 )
V a l i d
M a x i m u m
( d
a y s )
2 0
2 0
3 0
3 0
5 0
B y
P u b l i c
P r o s e c u t o r
H e a d o f
C o m p e t e n t
D i s t r i c t C o u r t
H e a d o f
C o m p e t e n t
D i s t r i c t C o u r t
H e a d o f
C o m p e t e n t
H i g h C o u r t
C h i e f J u s t i c e o f
t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
M a x
i m u m
( d a y s )
4 0
3 0
6 0
6 0
6 0
T o t a l
( d a y s )
6 0
5 0
9 0
9 0
1 1 0
4 1 0
B y
H e a d
o f C o
m p e t e n t D i s t r i c t
C o u r t
H e a d
o f C o
m p e t e n t D i s t r i c t
C o u r t
H e a d o f C o m
p e t e n t H i g h C o u r t
J u s t i c e o f t h
e S u p r e m e C o u r t
C h i e f J u s t i c e o f t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
M a x i m u m
( d a y s )
3 0 + 3 0
3 0 + 3 0
3 0 + 3 0
3 0 + 3 0
3 0 + 3 0
T o
t a l m a x i m u m l e n g t h o f d
e t e n t i o n p e r i o d
C
a s s a t i o n
( S e c o n d
A p p e a l )
A
p
p
e
a
l
E x t r e m e E x
c e p t i o n a l E x t e n s i o n
T o t a l
1 2 0
1 1 0
1 5 0
1 5 0
1 7 0
7 0 0
F
i r s t
I n s t a n c e
E x c e p t i o n a l E x t e n s i o n ( a r t . 2 9 )
E x t e n s i o n