Bridging the Accountability Gap Prosecutorial Ethics and Supervision in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice SystemBridging the Norm-Enforcement Gap: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Judicial Ethics Enforcement in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68211/nomosethica.v1i1.17Keywords:
Prosecutorial Ethics, Prosecutorial Accountability, Criminal Justice System, Prosecutorial Supervision, Accountability Gap, Rule of Law, Legal Enforcement, Institutional Oversight, Ethical GovernanceAbstract
Prosecutorial ethics and accountability are essential components in maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and strengthening public trust in law enforcement institutions. In Indonesia, the prosecutorial system is supported by various legal and institutional mechanisms intended to supervise prosecutorial conduct and ensure ethical compliance. However, concerns regarding abuse of authority, lack of transparency, selective prosecution, and weak supervisory effectiveness continue to emerge, indicating a discrepancy between normative regulations and practical implementation. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of prosecutorial ethics supervision in Indonesia by examining institutional accountability mechanisms and identifying the accountability gap within the prosecutorial oversight system. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. Primary legal materials include laws and regulations governing prosecutorial institutions, prosecutorial ethics, and supervisory authority, supported by academic literature and selected cases related to prosecutorial misconduct during 2023–2024. The findings reveal that although Indonesia has established formal supervisory mechanisms and ethical guidelines for prosecutors, enforcement remains limited due to institutional fragmentation, centralized supervisory authority, reactive monitoring systems, inconsistent disciplinary practices, and limited transparency in accountability processes. These conditions weaken the effectiveness of prosecutorial supervision and reduce public confidence in the criminal justice system. In response, this study proposes an integrated framework for strengthening prosecutorial accountability through institutional coordination, preventive supervision, transparent disciplinary mechanisms, ethical capacity building, and regulatory reinforcement. The study contributes theoretically by introducing the accountability gap as an analytical framework for evaluating prosecutorial supervision and contributes practically by offering policy-oriented recommendations to strengthen prosecutorial integrity and accountability within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
References
[1] Adhari M. Strengthening judicial and prosecutorial oversight institutions in contemporary legal systems. J. Legal Governance. 2025, 12(2):145–162.
[2] Akbar R. Reforming prosecutorial ethics in the digital era: Challenges and opportunities. Int. J. Law Soc. 2025, 9(1):33–48.
[3] Ali S, Rehman A. Institutional synergy and governance effectiveness in criminal justice systems. Global Governance Rev. 2025, 14(3):201–218.
[4] Appleby G. Transparency and accountability in disciplinary enforcement. Legal Ethics Rev. 2025, 29(1):55–72.
[5] Ardono T, Hariyanti S. Transparency in prosecutorial disciplinary processes and public trust. Indones. J. Law Policy. 2025, 6(2):101–118.
[6] Barroso LR, Campos Mello P. Prosecutorial independence and institutional accountability in democratic governance. Comp. Const. Law J. 2025, 11(2):89–110.
[7] Cravens M. Public disclosure and institutional discipline: Implications for accountability. J. Legal Stud. 2023, 52(3):412–430.
[8] Dar S, Khan M, Ali F. Big data analytics in governance: Enhancing institutional monitoring systems. J. Digital Governance. 2025, 7(1):65–82.
[9] Holland J, Gray C. Prosecutorial discipline and accountability mechanisms. Law Policy Q. 2000, 22(4):389–407.
[10] Huchhanavar R. Independence in disciplinary systems: A comparative analysis. J. Judicial Adm. 2022, 31(2):120–137.
[11] Isjayanto I, Bakti R. Institutional fragmentation in prosecutorial oversight: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Southeast Asian Law. 2025, 10(1):88–105.
[12] Khan M, Ahmed S. Harmonization of prosecutorial standards and procedural fairness. Int. Rev. Law. 2025, 15(2):210–228.
[13] Kumar V, Rastogi R. Inter-agency coordination in governance systems. Public Adm. Q. 2025, 49(1):73–95.
[14] Liu Y, Zhang H, Chen X. Early warning systems in governance: A predictive approach. Governance Policy J. 2025, 19(2):134–150.
[15] Maheswari D. Public complaints and prosecutorial accountability in Indonesia. J. Legal Reform. 2025, 11(2):98–115.
[16] Nazifah N, Rahman A, Siregar M. Organizational culture and ethical compliance in prosecutorial institutions. J. Legal Sociology. 2025, 9(3):201–220.
[17] Peirone F. Rule of law and institutional trust: The role of prosecutorial accountability. Eur. Law J. 2025, 31(1):66–84.
[18] Prado M. Institutional fragmentation and governance inefficiencies. World Dev. J. 2024, 162:106–120.
[19] Sapira L, Wibowo A, Santoso D. Sanction consistency and deterrence in institutional disciplinary systems. J. Law Enforcement Stud. 2026, 5(1):67–85.
[20] Utami R. Public complaints mechanism and prosecutorial supervision in Indonesia. Indones. J. Judicial Stud. 2025, 7(1):1–15.
[21] Adhari M. Strengthening judicial and prosecutorial oversight institutions in contemporary legal systems. J. Legal Governance. 2025, 12(2):145–162.
[22] Barroso LR, Campos Mello P. Prosecutorial independence and institutional accountability in democratic governance. Comp. Const. Law J. 2025, 11(2):89–110.
