Reconstruction of the Prosecution Service's Prosecutorial Authority in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System: Integration of the Dominus Litis Principle, the Data-Driven Justice Approach, and Indonesian Values

Authors

  • Aditya Rachman Rosadi Universitas Gadjah Mada Indonesia Flag Indonesia Author
  • Azkiya Pamungkas Rosadi Universitas Airlangga Indonesia Flag Indonesia Author
  • Rofi Zaidan Mubarok Rosadi Universitas Gadjah Mada Indonesia Flag Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53515/alqodiri.v24i3.348

Keywords:

Criminal Justice Reform, Data-Driven Justice, Dominus Litis, Restorative Justice, Prosecutorial Independence

Abstract

This study reconstructs the prosecutorial authority of the Indonesian Prosecution Service as dominus litis at the pre-adjudication stage by integrating comparative prosecution models, data-driven justice, restorative justice, and Indonesian legal values. The analysis is situated in the current procedural framework created by Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, effective from 2 January 2026, which replaced the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code and introduced mandatory investigator-prosecutor coordination from the investigation stage. Using normative legal research, the study examines Indonesian primary legal materials and compares relevant institutional features of prosecution in the Netherlands, the United States, and Singapore. The analysis indicates that Indonesia has moved beyond the former sequential model toward earlier coordination, but statutory coordination remains distinct from a fully prosecutor-directed investigation model. The appropriate reconstruction is therefore not the concentration of investigative power in the Prosecution Service, but an accountable form of dominus litis based on functional independence, early evidentiary coordination, structured prosecutorial discretion, and reviewable decision making. Data-driven tools can support consistency, case monitoring, and evidentiary assessment, but they should remain decision-support mechanisms subject to human review, transparency, privacy protection, and bias safeguards. Restorative justice and Pancasila values further require proportionality, deliberation, victim protection, equal treatment, and inter-institutional cooperation. The resulting model positions the prosecutor as a coordinating case controller within an integrated criminal justice system while preserving institutional boundaries and due process.

References

Adler, R. F., Paley, A., Li Zhao, A. L., Pack, H., Servantez, S., Pah, A. R., Hammond, K., & SCALES OKN Consortium. (2023). A user-centered approach to developing an AI system analyzing U.S. federal court data. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31(3), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09320-z

Amaral, F. A., Loeffler, C. E., & Ridgeway, G. (2024). Prosecutorial discretion not to invoke the criminal process and its impact on firearm cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 95, Article 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102313

Arief, B. N. (2017). Bunga rampai kebijakan hukum pidana: Perkembangan penyusunan konsep KUHP baru (6th ed.). Kencana.

Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia No. 15 of 2020 concerning termination of prosecution based on restorative justice.

Banwell-Moore, R. (2024). Restorative justice: Adopting a whole system approach to address cultural barriers in criminal justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 24(5), 1028–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241268005

Barkow, R. E. (2013). Prosecutorial administration: Prosecutor bias and the Department of Justice. Virginia Law Review, 99(2), 271–342.

Berk, R. A. (2021). Artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and risk assessment for law enforcement. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342

Bielen, S., & Grajzl, P. (2021). Prosecution or persecution? Extraneous events and prosecutorial decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18(4), 765–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12301

Bontempelli, M. (2022). The statute of the Italian European Public Prosecutor. Milan Law Review, 3(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.54103/milanlawreview/18732

Bowman, R., Lowrey-Kinberg, B., & Gould, J. B. (2026). Progressive prosecution in context: Examining the impact of prosecutorial administration change on case-processing patterns and racial disparities. Criminology & Public Policy, 25, 171–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.70029

Braithwaite, J. (2021). Street-level meta-strategies: Evidence on restorative justice and responsive regulation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111720-013149

Castro-Toledo, F. J., Miró-Llinares, F., & Aguerri, J. C. (2023). Data-driven criminal justice in the age of algorithms: Epistemic challenges and practical implications. Criminal Law Forum, 34, 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09454-y

Chen, S. (2013). The limits on prosecutorial discretion in Singapore: Past, present, and future. International Review of Law, 2013(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.5339/irl.2013.5

Cox, A. L., & Gripp, C. (2022). The legitimation strategies of ‘progressive’ prosecutors. Social & Legal Studies, 31(5), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211060814

Engels, C., Linhardt, L., & Schubert, M. (2025). Code is law: How COMPAS affects the way the judiciary handles the risk of recidivism. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 33, 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-024-09389-8

Gavrielides, T. (2022). Ambitions and critiques of restorative justice post COVID-19. Laws, 11(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11010006

Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30, 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4

Hamilton, M. (2021). Evaluating algorithmic risk assessment. New Criminal Law Review, 24(2), 156–211. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2021.24.2.156

Hamzah, A. (2021). Hukum acara pidana Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.

Kimbrell, C. S., Wilson, D. B., & Olaghere, A. (2023). Restorative justice programs and practices in juvenile justice: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for effectiveness. Criminology & Public Policy, 22, 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12613

Lowder, E. M., Diaz, C. L., Grommon, E., & Ray, B. R. (2021). Effects of pretrial risk assessments on release decisions and misconduct outcomes relative to practice as usual. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, Article 101754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101754

Márton, B. (2024). Independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the appointment procedures. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 15(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844241228721

Marzuki, P. M. (2021). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.

Mitchell, O., Oramas Mora, D., Sticco, T. L., & Boggess, L. N. (2022). Are progressive chief prosecutors effective in reducing prison use and cumulative racial/ethnic disadvantage? Evidence from Florida. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(3), 535–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12598

Nelson, M. J., & Samarth, T. (2022). Judging prosecutors: Public support for prosecutorial discretion. Research & Politics, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221134999

Nguyen, V., & Ouss, A. (2026). Prosecutorial guidelines and courtroom workgroups. Justice Quarterly, 43(4), 849–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2025.2572686

Papagianneas, S., & Junius, N. (2023). Fairness and justice through automation in China’s smart courts. Computer Law & Security Review, 51, Article 105897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105897

Procter-Legg, T., Hobson, J., & Quimby, E. (2024). Restorative justice and social justice: An international perspective. Contemporary Justice Review, 27(2–3), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2024.2414953

Republic of Indonesia. (1945). Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945.

Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Law No. 11 of 2021 concerning amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia.

Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code.

Rossner, M., & Taylor, H. (2024). The transformative potential of restorative justice: What the mainstream can learn from the margins. Annual Review of Criminology, 7, 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-040921

Ryberg, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence at sentencing: When do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans? AI and Ethics, 5, 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00442-5

Sachoulidou, A. (2023). Going beyond the ‘common suspects’: To be presumed innocent in the era of algorithms, big data and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence and Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09347-w

Sanz-Urquijo, B., Fosch-Villaronga, E., & Lopez-Belloso, M. (2023). The disconnect between the goals of trustworthy AI for law enforcement and the EU research agenda. AI and Ethics, 3, 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00235-8

Simmler, M., Brunner, S., Canova, G., & Schedler, K. (2023). Smart criminal justice: Exploring the use of algorithms in the Swiss criminal justice system. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31, 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09310-1

Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2021). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat (20th ed.). Rajawali Pers.

Tak, P. J. P. (2008). The Dutch criminal justice system (3rd ed.). Wolf Legal Publishers.

Tuesta, D. (2021). Rethinking prosecutorial discretion: Towards a moral cartography of prosecutors. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(6), 1486–1502. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab040

Ugwudike, P. (2022). AI audits for assessing design logics and building ethical systems: The case of predictive policing algorithms. AI and Ethics, 2, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00117-5

Vilaça, L. (2024). Framing and prosecutorial discretion: Evidence from Brazil. Law & Society Review, 58(2), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsr.2024.7

Votruba, A. M., & Tisdale, C. N. (2021). Examining prosecutorial decision-making in plea bargaining: An experimental paradigm in a community sample. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21, 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12234

Wessels, M. (2024). Algorithmic policing accountability: Eight sociotechnical challenges. Policing and Society, 34(3), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2023.2241965

Wu, W., & Lin, X. (2025). Access to technology, access to justice: China’s artificial intelligence application in criminal proceedings. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 81, Article 100741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2025.100741

Zottola, S. A., Desmarais, S. L., Lowder, E. M., & Duhart Clarke, S. E. (2022). Evaluating fairness of algorithmic risk assessment instruments: The problem with forcing dichotomies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(3), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211040544

Zuidema, A. (2023). To which prosecution service? Analyzing the way the Union resolves conflicts of criminal jurisdiction. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231191373

Downloads

Published

2026-10-09