Strengthening the Function of Polri's Primary Investigator as a Restorative Justice Facilitator within the Framework of the New KUHAP (Law Number 20 of 2025)

Imam Subandi (Universitas Indonesia, Jawa Barat, Indonesia.)
Sukardi Sukardi (Universitas Nasional, Jakarta, Indonesia.)
Roy Darmawan (Guanxi Minzu University, Guangxi, China.)
Aries Apriliano S (Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.)
Imelda Rahma S (Universitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta, Indonesia.)

Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences
Vol. 4 No. 4 (2026): (GIJLSS) Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (September

Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) introduces a significant statutory development by expressly designating Penyidik Polri as Primary Investigators and assigning them authority to coordinate, supervise, and direct Civil Servant Investigators (PPNS) and Specific Investigators, subject to the statutory exceptions provided by the Law. The new KUHAP also incorporates restorative justice into the statutory framework of criminal procedure through Articles 79–88, including provisions concerning eligibility, initiation, voluntary agreement, implementation, termination of proceedings, and judicial determination. This study aims to analyze the statutory position and authority of Penyidik Polri as Primary Investigators and examine how the coordination and supervision functions operationalized through the Korwas PPNS structure can be integrated with the restorative justice framework without creating a conflict between supervisory authority and restorative facilitation. This study employs normative legal research using a statute approach and a conceptual approach. The legal materials are analyzed through systematic and conceptual interpretation to distinguish the statutory authority of Penyidik Polri, the institutional functions of Korwas PPNS at the Bareskrim, Polda, and Polres levels, and the authority of individual officers legally appointed to exercise investigative powers. The study proposes a normative model based on functional separation, procedural safeguards, informed and voluntary consent, legal representation, victim and vulnerable-group protection, conflict-of-role safeguards, judicial review, recordkeeping, and complaint mechanisms. The proposed model also recognizes the sectoral and lex-specialisprovisions preserved under Articles 3, 363, and 364 of Law Number 20 of 2025. The proposed framework remains a normative and unvalidated model; its operational effectiveness requires further empirical examination through representative sectoral cases and stakeholder evidence.