The existence of the Dominus Litis principle in the prosecution of criminal acts that occur today is clear and limitative, and is stated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Criminal Procedure Code, Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, and its technical implementing regulations which are stated in the Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number PER-067/A/JA/07/2007 concerning the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors, Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number PER-069/A/JA/07/2007 concerning the Provisions for Organizing Supervision of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number PER-36/A/JA/09/2011 concerning Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Handling General Crime Cases.

Observing this, it is increasingly clear and firm that these regulations have formulated the existence of prosecution authority in the Prosecutor's Office which is absolute, thus emphasizing that the Dominus Litis principle has an important role in the implementation of the duties and authority of prosecution for the occurrence of criminal acts by the Prosecutor as the public prosecutor.

The strengthening of the existence of the Dominus Litis principle is reflected in the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number: 130/PUU-XIII/2015 dated January 11, 2017, where the Investigator is obliged to submit a Notification Letter on the Commencement of Investigation (SPDP) to the Public Prosecutor within 7 (seven) days after the SPDP is issued. Based on the Constitutional Court's decision, the authority of a Prosecutor is to act as a public prosecutor and executor of court decisions. This is related to the Public Prosecutor as the party who has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt in the criminal justice system in accordance with the basic principle of evidence as explained in Article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Potential Conflicts in Applying the Dominus Litis Principle

The Dominus Litis principle has the potential to increase effectiveness at the preliminary examination stage before being examined in court (pre-adjudication) where there is joint responsibility between investigators, investigators, and public prosecutors in preparing files before going to court and there are no barriers between institutions in handling a case. In the Dominus Litis principle, the Prosecutor's Office is considered the “controller of the case” in a case. This also needs to be emphasized by the formulation of the Dominus Litis principle in the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code.

So far, legal culture in the implementation of the pre-adjudication stage provides its own limitations between the Police as investigators and investigators and the Prosecutor as the public prosecutor. Before the case proceeds to the adjudication stage (trial examination), the public prosecutor is fully responsible for matters related to prosecution files in court. This is stated in Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even though the Prosecutor's Office is given the authority to prepare pre-adjudication files, there is still potential for conflict if the Dominus Litis principle is applied, especially potential conflicts between Investigators and Public Prosecutors, such as:

Misunderstandings between Law Enforcers in Preparing Prosecution Files

In practice, the Police (investigators and investigators) are given more dominant power in preparing pre-adjudication files. With the Dominus Litis principle, the Prosecutor is given the same responsibility in preparing related files. If the Dominus Litis principle is applied, it can cause misunderstandings between the police and prosecutors regarding the culture of preparing pre-adjudication files.

Standardization of Prosecution Files

In order to cut time in preparing prosecution files, the Prosecutor needs to be involved in the investigation. The dominus litis principle signifies that the Prosecutor is the controller of a case. Therefore, there needs to be collaboration from the Police and the Prosecutor's Office in preparing pre-adjudication files because the Prosecutor is also authorized to know, supervise and give opinions on a case.

References

  • Effendi, Tolib. Criminal Justice System: Comparison of Components and Processes of the Criminal Justice System in Several Countries. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Yustisia, 2013.
  • Perbawa, Gede. “Policy, Criminal Law Against the Existence of the Dominus Litis Principle in the Perspective of Professionalism and Proportionalism of Public Prosecutors.” Arena Hukum 7, no. 3 (December 1, 2014): 325–42.
  • RM. Surachman, and Andi Hamzah. Prosecutors in Various Countries: Roles and Positions. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 1996.
  • Yusni, Muhammad. “The Problematics of the Implementation of the Dominus Litis Principles in the Perspective of the Jurisdiction.” Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) 3, no. 4 (2020).

*This article represents the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the editors of Literasi Hukum Indonesia.