OPTIMIZATION OF PROSECUTORS COMMISSIONS SUPERVISORY FUNCTION IN DEALING WITH COMPLAINT ABOUT PROSECUTORS PERFORMANCE

After about 15 (fifteen) years of its formation, the Prosecutors Commission is deemed not optimal in its performance of duties, especially in dealing with public report or complaint, considering that the provisions of Article 4 item a and b Presidential Regulation on Prosecutors Commission that is the basis for the Prosecutors Commission to perform its duties as set forth in Article 3 Presidential Regulation concerning Prosecutors Commission causes multiple interpretations that, according to the provisions of Article 4 item a in performance of its duties of supervising, monitoring and assessing the performance and behaviors of prosecutors and/or employees of Prosecutor Office, the Prosecutors Commission has the authority to accept and follow up public reports or complaints, the extent of the Prosecutors Commissions authority to follow up public reports or complaints are not clearly regulated. However, according to the provisions of Article 4 item b, it is the Prosecutors Commissions authority to forward public reports or complaints to the Attorney General for follow-up. According to the provisions of Article 10 Presidential Regulation No. 18 of 2011 concerning Prosecutors Commission, the Prosecutors Commission has the right to participate in the hearing of a case which attracts public attention. Therefore, the Prosecutors Commission needs to make efforts to optimize its duties performance in dealing with public complaints, for example, by using the concept of the progressive law theory popularized by Satjipto Raharjo, that in progressive law application, law is not enforced according to the letter, but according to the very meaning of laws or regulations in a broad sense. Similarly, in performance of the Prosecutors Commissions authority in dealing with complaints, in which the authority is deemed to have weaknesses, the Prosecutors Commission cannot perform its functions optimally as an external supervisory agency. All this time, the Prosecutors Commission, in dealing with complaints, only focuses on reviewing the substance of complaint without performing functional supervisory activities such as monitoring, data collection, inspection and review. The reason is since the Prosecutors Commission has not applied the progressive law, while in dealing with public complaints related to cases which attract public attention, the Prosecutors Commission should have the psychology and morality to position itself as the avant-garde in dealing with cases which attract public attention, so as to give justice to the people in dealing with cases transparently and accountably. As a concrete measure of optimizing its duty performance, the Prosecutors Commission has internally amended the Prosecutors Commission regulations which are deemed not conforming to the progressive law, such as the amendment to the provisions of Article 1 point 14 of Prosecutors Commission Regulation number PER-05/KK/04/2012. In addition, the progressive law should be applied to Prosecutors Commissions preventive supervision by participating in the hearing of important cases dealt with by Prosecutors, either directly or by using technology, such as attending a hearing online, thus the presence of the Prosecutors Commission will be felt better, which means that the purpose of the Prosecutors Commission formation as an external supervisory agency for better transparency and accountability is achieved.