Comparative Analysis Of Prosecutorial Powers In The Criminal Justice Systems Of Indonesia And Thailand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i1.45Keywords:
prosecution, criminal procedure law, comparative lawAbstract
This study examines the comparative regulation, authority, and procedural framework of prosecution within the criminal justice systems of Indonesia and Thailand. The research focuses on the normative arrangements governing prosecution, the scope of authority exercised by public prosecutors, and the procedural differences in criminal proceedings that influence prosecutorial practices in both countries. The method employed is normative juridical research using a comparative law approach, based on the analysis of statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant scholarly literature. The findings indicate that Indonesia adopts the dominus litis principle, which places the public prosecutor as the sole authority controlling prosecution, as regulated under the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Law on the Public Prosecution Service. This system reflects a centralized and formalistic prosecutorial structure. In contrast, Thailand implements a prosecution system that grants broader discretionary powers to prosecutors during the pre-prosecution stage and allows greater victim participation within criminal proceedings. These differences demonstrate Indonesia’s emphasis on legal certainty and institutional hierarchy, while Thailand prioritizes procedural flexibility and victim protection. This comparative analysis highlights the strengths and limitations of each system and provides valuable insights for the development and reform of prosecutorial authority within Indonesia’s criminal justice system through comparative legal perspectives.
References
[1] A. F. Anisya, H. Hafrida, And E. Erwin, “Studi Perbandingan Penuntutan Perkara Pidana Dalam Perspektif Sistem Pembuktian Menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia Dan Thailand,” Pampas: Journal Of Criminal Law, Vol. 2, No. 3, Pp. 59–75, 2021, Doi: 10.22437/Pampas.V2i3.14876.
[2] D. Wahyudi, “The Prosecutor ’ S Authority As " Dominus Litis " In The Draft Criminal Procedure Code In Indonesia,” Vol. 4, No. 4, Pp. 3252–3255, 2025.
[3] H. Y. Kindangan And Kasubbag, “Indonesia And Its Comparasion In European Countries,” Vol. 1, No. 1, Pp. 88–117, 2023.
[4] S. Evi, E. Al, And A. Irawan, “Perbandingan Peran Penyidik Dan Penuntut Umum Dalam Sistem Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia Dan Thailand: Studi Kasus Tentang Penanganan Perkara Korupsi,” Ijlj: Indonesian Journal Of Law And Justice, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pp. 51–55, 2024.
[5] N. Orient Laloan, “Kewenangan Penyidik Dan Penuntut Umum Menurut Sistem Peradilan Pidana Dalam Menangani Perkara Pidana Menurut Kuhap,” Lex Crimen, Vol. 9, No. 2, Pp. 37–44, 2020.
[6] G. C. Alimudin, “Kontroversi Kuhap Terbaru : Perbandingan Kewenangan Jaksa Dan Kepolisian Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia,” Jurnal Ilmiah Penelitian Mahasiswa, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2025.
[7] A. Abunawas, T. D. Aprilsesa, S. Aminah, M. Tahir, And M. Marnita, “Perbandingan Peraturan Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual Terhadap Anak Di Indonesia Dan Thailand,” Jurnal Al-Ahkam: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam, Vol. 5, No. 2, Pp. 114–125, 2023, Doi: 10.47435/Al-Ahkam.V5i2.2225.
[8] R. Marpaung And T. P. Moeliono, “Perbandingan Hukum Antara Prinsip Habeas Corpus Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Inggris Dengan Praperadilan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia,” Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, Vol. 5, No. 2, P. 224, 2021, Doi: 10.25072/Jwy.V5i2.494.
[9] A. Sofian, “Pampas : Journal Of Criminal Law Volume 6 Nomor 2 , Tahun 2025 Penguatan Kapasitas Jaksa Melalui Koordinasi Dalam Proses Penyidikan Dan Penuntutan Dalam Ruu Kuhap : Studi Perbandingan As , Belanda Dan Indonesia Berbagai Permasalahan Muncul Terkait Asas Do,” Pampas: Journal Of Criminal Law, Vol. 6, Pp. 183–217, 2025.
[10] S. Agustina, K. S. Wahyuningrum, And S. Yusi, “Analisis Yuridis Dominus Litis Perkara Terhadap Independensi Kejaksaan: Perbandingan Hukum Pidana Dan Belgia,” Jurnal Rechten : Riset Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pp. 14–25, 2025, Doi: 10.52005/Rechten.V7i3.227.
[11] Dini Mardhatillah And Muhammad Ramdan Al Musthafa, “Perbandingan Hukum Mengenai Kewenangan Penyidikan Perkara Pidana Antara Kejaksaan Indonesia Dengan Korea Selatan,” Perkara : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik, Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 430–442, 2024, Doi: 10.51903/Perkara.V2i1.1820.
[12] Istiqomah Farha Anisa, Eis Libiasenti, Fitri Safira Andini, Muhamad Renaldi, Nanda Rachmad Fauzi, And Muhamad Misbachul Kahfi, “Perbandingan Antara Peran Jaksa Di Indonesia Dengan Peran Jaksa Di Daerah Administrasi Khusus Macao Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Menurut Undang-Undang Dasar,” Jurnal Riset Rumpun Ilmu Sosial, Politik Dan Humaniora, Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 37–47, 2022, Doi: 10.55606/Jurrish.V2i1.641.
[13] M. A. Radhiansyah, “Kewenangan Dominus Litis Jaksa Dalam Peradilan Pidana Indonesia: Problematika Bolak-Balik Berkas Dan Implikasinya Terhadap Perlindungan Hak Asasi Manusia,” Pp. 903–939.
[14] D. R. Tangga, “Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Unsrat Lex Privatum Vol.13, No.5 Juli 2024,” Vol. 13, No. 5, Pp. 1–13, 2024.
