Legal Literacy - On the judicial stage, the public often identifies Prosecutor Public Prosecutor (JPU) with the image of a tenacious lion. He, with all his arguments and evidence, struggles to convince the judge to sentence a defendant. The Prosecutor becomes the personification of the state demanding criminal accountability. However, imagine a scenario that collapses this classic image: the same lion, in the middle of an open trial, instead bows its head and asks the panel of judges to release its prey.
Phenomenon Prosecutor demands acquittal or when the prosecutor files acquittal (dismissal of all legal proceedings) against a defendant immediately sparked controversy. Some consider this an anomaly, even an admission of failure. For me, this is the moment when criminal law shows its most magnificent face. This debate is not just about juridical technicalities, but concerns the soul of our criminal justice system .
Dominus Litis Mistaken?
Often, many parties reject the prosecutor's authority to acquit, basing their arguments on a rigid interpretation of the dominus litis principle. This principle, which literally means "master of the case", does indeed mandate the Prosecutor's Office as the only institution that can prosecute. Adhering to this principle, some argue that once a prosecutor submits a case to court, their sacred duty binds them to demand punishment. They consider withdrawing from the prosecution, let alone requesting acquittal, would violate this principle.
This argument, in essence, contains a fundamental flaw. Dominus litis is a principle about the monopoly of prosecutorial authority, not a mandate to act blindly. This authority gives the prosecutor full control over a case. That control includes the initiation of prosecution, amendments to the indictment, and ultimately, drawing conclusions based on the facts revealed in court. If the trial proves the opposite of what the prosecutor initially believed, then control over the case—precisely based on dominus litis—requiring the prosecutor to adjust their demands according to the newly revealed truth.
Prosecutorial Inconsistency?
A more popular criticism accuses inconsistency. The logic is simple: The prosecutor, through the investigation and pre-prosecution process, has declared the case file complete (P-21). This means that the prosecutor has been convinced that there are at least two valid pieces of evidence to accuse someone. Then, how can the same prosecutor, at the end of the trial, turn 180 degrees and declare the defendant not guilty? Isn't this the same as exposing the weaknesses of their own institution in public?
This view is valid if we see criminal procedure law as a linear and rigid procedure. However, the lawmakers did not design it Criminal Procedure Code that way. The trial is not a stage play to simply agree with the results of the investigation. The trial is a sacred forum to test, verify, and even refute all the arguments and evidence presented by the public prosecutor. This is where the heart of the judicial process lies: the dialectic between the prosecutor and the defense before an impartial judge.
Absolute Material Truth
This is where we arrive at the central argument that justifies, and even requires, the prosecutor to demand acquittal under certain conditions. Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the main objective of Indonesian criminal procedure law is to seek and find material truth—the essential truth based on actual facts—not just formal truth that relies solely on fulfilling procedures.
When new facts, credible witness statements, or expert analysis in court convincingly dismantle the construction of the indictment, the prosecutor faces a moral and juridical choice. Will they remain steadfast in their initial indictment to maintain "consistency" or the institution's image, or will they submit to the higher truth? Forcing a criminal charge when conscience and evidence in court say otherwise is a form of betrayal of the purpose of the law itself. This is no longer law enforcement, but a rape of justice.
Pinnacle of Prosecutorial Integrity
In my opinion, The prosecutor demands acquittal is not an anomaly or a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it is the highest manifestation of a prosecutor's integrity and deep understanding of their duty. The prosecutor, as a representation of the state, does not have the primary duty to punish people. Their primary duty is to ensure that justice is upheld (to see that justice is done). Justice includes efforts to ensure that the guilty are punished, and the judge must acquit the innocent—based on the evidence in court.
The demand for acquittal or release is a manifestation of officium nobile (noble office) of a prosecutor. It demonstrates a prosecutor's capacity to transcend personal ego and institutional pressure. They realize that their crown is not the number of demands that the judge grants, but the establishment of material truth. This is the moment when the state, through the prosecutor, chivalrously acknowledges that the initial belief in the indictment turned out to be wrong after the testing process in the honorable court.
Victory of Justice
Ultimately, we must revisit the polemic regarding prosecutor's authority acquittal in the essence of criminal justice. A criminal justice system healthy one is not a punishing machine, but a truth-seeking mechanism. A prosecutor who bravely takes a stance to demand acquittal or release is not a defeated or inconsistent prosecutor.
He is a prosecutor who has reached the peak of philosophical understanding of his role: as the foremost guardian of justice, not merely a state executioner. A prosecutor who demands acquittal is not a prosecutor who loses the case. He is a prosecutor who wins justice itself. And that victory is what should be the goal of our rule of law.
Comments (0)
Write a comment