AGO - law 1991

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


8/6/2019 AGO - law 1991


203



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


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


205



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


206


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


207



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


208


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


209



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


210


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


211



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


212


(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


213



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


214


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


215



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


216


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


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


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


C O R R U P T I O N C R I M E S


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


O T H E R G E N E R A L

C R I M E S


S U B V E R S I O N C R I M E S


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 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


217



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

AGO - law 1991

Documents

Transcript of AGO - law 1991