Reverse Criminalization as a Systemic Product of Procedural Law

Therefore, it is important for us to shift the paradigm in viewing retaliatory prosecution. We must no longer see this phenomenon merely as individual deviations or abuse of power by rogue investigators. Instead, reverse criminalization must be recognized as a systemic product of flawed procedural law. As long as our Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not provide a conflict-of-interest filter, reverse criminalization will continue to recur mechanically, even by officials who feel they are working according to procedure. A law that claims to be neutral but refuses to read power relations will continue to produce substantive injustice. This is the paradox of our law: we encourage people to dare to report, but we do not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that such courage does not lead to the reporter's own destruction (Marzuki, 2021: 112).

Anti-Retaliation Presumption as Procedural Protection for Reporters

As a step forward to break this chain of criminalization, I offer a radical reconceptualization of whistleblower protection. This protection should no longer be placed in the realm of policy-based measures that are highly dependent on the discretion of officials or the availability of protection agency budgets, but must be elevated to a rights-based procedural legal right that is inherent from the moment the first report is submitted. In this context, I propose the recognition of the "Anti-Retaliation Presumption" principle into our procedural law system. This principle will require law enforcement officials to automatically rigorously test every report filed against a reporter, witness, or victim while the principal case is still in legal process or has not received a final and binding decision.

This "Anti-Retaliation Presumption" principle does not mean giving absolute legal immunity to the reporter because absolute immunity can also be misused, but rather a stay mechanism or suspension of legal proceedings against the counter-report. If someone reports an alleged corruption, and then they are reported back for defamation by the party they reported, then the legal process on the defamation report must be stopped or at least postponed until the corruption case is proven or not. The logic is simple: the material truth of the principal case must be the state's top priority. If the principal case is proven true, then legally the counter-report must be declared null and void because it does not meet the element of illegality. Conversely, if the principal case is proven to be a malicious slander through a court decision, then the counter-report can be processed further.

This step will drastically change the risk map for reporters. With the presumption of anti-retaliation, reporters no longer have to face two battlefields simultaneously. The state, through its legal instruments, actively takes a position to maintain the integrity of the truth-telling process. This idea is actually in line with the spirit of restorative justice that is being echoed, but is more focused on protecting procedural rights at the initial stage of investigation (Atmasasmita, 2010: 56). Without the courage to insert such a filter into our Criminal Procedure Code, all forms of anti-corruption campaigns or witness protection will only become empty jargon that does not have strong binding power in the field.

The Role of the Prosecutor's Office in Breaking Retaliatory Prosecution

Criticism of procedural neutrality that is blind to context also demands a change in behavior at the prosecutor's office level as the controller of the case (dominus litis). Prosecutors should have broader authority to stop prosecutions from the pre-prosecution stage if there is a strong indication that the case being filed is a form of malicious legal retaliation. We need prosecutors who are not just "mailmen" of files from the police to the court, but prosecutors who are able to discern whether a case is worthy of being brought to trial in the public interest or will actually injure the public sense of justice. In progressive legal theory, law exists for humans, not humans for law (Rahardjo, 2009: 110). If the application of a legal rule silences those who are trying to uphold the law, then there is something wrong with the way we adjudicate.

Restoring the Dignity of Law and the Courage to Report

Finally, the state's failure to break the chain of reverse criminalization is a failure to maintain the dignity of the law itself. If reporting becomes an unbearable risk, then people will choose to remain silent. The silence of society is the most comfortable place for crime to breed. We cannot continue to rely on the heroism of certain individuals who are willing to sacrifice themselves to report; we must build a system that makes reporting a safe and dignified act. Adopting the principle of anti-retaliation presumption and building a conflict of interest filter at the initial stage of investigation is no longer just an option, but an urgent necessity for the renewal of our national law. Only in that way can the state truly be present to break the chain of fear and ensure that the law remains a home for the truth, not a hammer for those who reveal the facts.