<![CDATA[The oversight function of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) often clashes with the principle of law enforcement independence. This study aims to restructure the parliamentary oversight function to enhance the independence of law enforcement agencies guaranteed by the Constitution. The research method is normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches. The results indicate significant antinomy between the MD3 Law and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the Prosecutor Law, and the Police Law, leading to legislative overreach. Although Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 legitimizes political oversight, the absence of material boundaries in Hearings (RDP) often triggers undue influence on case technicalities, violating the principle of due process of law. A reconstruction of norms through the revision of the MD3 Law is required to emphasize the demarcation between policy oversight and case oversight. This reconstruction includes implementing the principle of "exhaustion of remedies," tiered confidentiality, and redefining RDP recommendations as non-executory administrative-instructional "constitutional notifications" to ensure a balance between public accountability and judicial independence.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
