Prasetyoandi, Destri
Unknown Affiliation

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

THE AUTHORITY OF INVESTIGATORS TO TERMINATE INVESTIGATIONS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDONESIA Prasetyoandi, Destri
Journal Philosophy of Law Vol 5, No 1 (2024)
Publisher : Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56444/jpl.v5i1.4892

Abstract

This study aims to understand how law enforcement is regulated according to Law Number 8 of 1981 and how the criminal investigation process can be terminated by investigators. This research uses normative legal research methods, utilizing both primary and secondary data. The research approach used is a legislative approach. The results of the study show that in the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), there are provisions that allow law enforcement officers, especially investigators and public prosecutors, to discontinue a criminal case from proceeding to trial. This can be done through the termination of investigation or prosecution. However, the authorities stipulated in the KUHAP to discontinue a criminal case to court, such as the termination of investigation and prosecution, do not provide a legal basis for investigators to settle cases peacefully. Instead, the KUHAP follows the principle of legality in prosecution, obliging investigators and public prosecutors to prosecute all cases that meet legal requirements in court, in accordance with Article 140 paragraph (2) linked to Article 14 of the KUHAP. Although Article 140 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP indicates that the KUHAP does not adopt the principle of opportunity in prosecution but follows the principle of legality, the explanation of Article 77 of the KUHAP acknowledges the principle of opportunity. This principle gives authority to public prosecutors to postpone or suspend a case that actually meets the legal requirements for prosecution, for the public interest. However, this authority cannot be a legal basis for settling cases peacefully outside of court, as reasons of interest in peaceful settlement cannot be considered as reasons of public interest, as explained in the Explanation of Article 35 Letter c of the Indonesian Prosecutor Law No. 16 of 2004.
Reconceptualizing ANKUM’s Role in Military Discipline: A Normative and Comparative Reassessment of Command Authority and Justice Prasetyoandi, Destri; Sulistiani, Lies; Rusmiati, Elis; Aboelazm, Karem Sayed
Jambura Law Review VOLUME 8 NO. 1 JANUARY 2026
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jlr.v1i1.33722

Abstract

The enforcement of military discipline is essential to operational readiness; however, the normative and ethical foundations of disciplinary authority within the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) remain insufficiently examined. Existing scholarship largely treats ANKUM (Superior Officers Authorized to Impose Punishment) as a procedural or administrative mechanism, leaving a significant gap concerning its ethical legitimacy, normative coherence, and institutional accountability as a command-based disciplinary authority. This article addresses that gap by critically reassessing ANKUM’s role beyond its formal legal mandate. By employing a normative juridical method combined with conceptual and comparative approaches, this study examines Indonesian military disciplinary law alongside selected models from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. The analysis demonstrates that the concentration of discretionary power in ANKUM generates normative vulnerabilities, including inconsistent enforcement, limited procedural safeguards, and ethical tension in balancing command loyalty with justice. The article’s original contribution lies in reconceptualizing military discipline not merely as an instrument of hierarchical control, but as an ethical institution inherent in command responsibility, operationalized through three analytical dimensions: ethical proportionality in sanctioning, institutional accountability mechanisms, and the alignment of disciplinary enforcement with unit cohesion and operational readiness. Grounded in comparative military justice and moral philosophy, the article proposes a reform-oriented framework that enhances legal legitimacy and strengthens ethical command within democratic civil–military relations