<![CDATA[This study examines the institutional design of corruption law enforcement in Indonesia and compares it with the anti-corruption frameworks of Singapore and Hong Kong. The urgency of this research stems from the persistence of overlapping authority among the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Indonesian National Police, and the Attorney General’s Office, which potentially undermines legal certainty, institutional accountability, and enforcement effectiveness. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative law approaches, supported by qualitative analysis of legal instruments and scholarly literature. The findings reveal that Indonesia’s multi-agency enforcement model creates jurisdictional fragmentation and overlapping authority, particularly in investigation, inquiry, supervision, and prosecution processes. In contrast, Singapore’s centralized model through the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Hong Kong’s integrated model through the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) provide clearer institutional mandates and stronger legal certainty. The novelty of this research lies in conceptualizing overlapping authority as a normative legal problem affecting legal certainty and proposing the concept of authority delimitation as a governance mechanism for corruption law enforcement. This study contributes theoretically to the discourse on the relationship between institutional design, legal certainty, and anti-corruption governance, while practically offering a model for strengthening inter-agency coordination, jurisdictional clarity, and institutional accountability within Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis desain kelembagaan penegakan hukum tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia serta membandingkannya dengan sistem pemberantasan korupsi di Singapura dan Hong Kong. Urgensi penelitian ini berangkat dari masih adanya overlapping authority antara Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK), Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia, dan Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia yang berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, menurunkan akuntabilitas kelembagaan, serta menghambat efektivitas penegakan hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan perbandingan hukum yang dianalisis secara kualitatif melalui kajian peraturan perundang-undangan dan literatur ilmiah. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa model multi-lembaga di Indonesia menyebabkan fragmentasi yurisdiksi dan tumpang tindih kewenangan, khususnya pada tahap penyelidikan, penyidikan, supervisi, dan penuntutan. Sebaliknya, model terpusat di Singapura melalui Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) dan model integratif di Hong Kong melalui Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) mampu menciptakan kejelasan mandat kelembagaan dan kepastian hukum yang lebih kuat. Novelty penelitian ini terletak pada konseptualisasi overlapping authority sebagai persoalan hukum normatif yang memengaruhi kepastian hukum serta pengembangan konsep delimitasi kewenangan sebagai instrumen tata kelola penegakan hukum korupsi. Kontribusi penelitian ini memperkaya kajian teoritis mengenai hubungan antara desain kelembagaan, kepastian hukum, dan pemberantasan korupsi, sekaligus menawarkan formulasi penguatan koordinasi, kejelasan yurisdiksi, dan akuntabilitas kelembagaan dalam sistem penegakan hukum korupsi di Indonesia.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
