Authored By: Devi Ervina Nursyamsiah
Graduated from Padjadjaran University
Introduction
Recently in Indonesia, an interesting corruption and money laundering case occurred involving public prosecutors in special crimes, with Febrie Ardiansyah as the main suspect. A notable aspect of this case is that the investigation was carried out by the Indonesian National Police before the case was transferred to the prosecutor’s office. Febrie Ardiansyah is getting investigated after his involvement in three corruption and money laundering cases in Asabri Ltd., Coal-Fired Power Plant, and Krakatau Steel Ltd. Police named Febrie as a suspect after finding some evidence at his house that was worth 60 billion rupiah. The transfer of the case from the national police to the prosecutor’s office presents a legal novelty in the Indonesian legal framework. Currently, there is no statutory provision in Indonesia that authorizes the transfer of investigation jurisdiction inter-institutionally. Consequently, this case lacks a robust legal grounding. (Tim detikcom, 2026)
This research will examine how the transfer of investigation in the Febrie Ardiansyah case bears upon the Indonesian legal system. Section II will demonstrate the legal framework. Section III will elucidate how the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (ICPC) works and the respective functions and competencies of the judicial actor during the investigation proceedings. Section IV elucidates how the ICPC works in the Febrie Ardiansyah case, utilizing the analytical lens of legal certainty. Section IV will also elaborate on how this mechanism will adversely affect the criminal justice system in Indonesia
The Existing Legal Framework
Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (ICPC)
Indonesian procedural rules are stipulated under Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, hereinafter “ICPC”) that repealed Law No. 8 of 1981. This regulation elaborates on how the integrated criminal justice system in Indonesia works. Based on the foregoing, which will analyze the investigator and pre-trial system, the articles that will be used to analyze are Article 1, Articles 6 through 9, and Article 19, paragraph 4.(Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, n.d.)
Article no. 1 point 1 exemplifies that a criminal investigator constitutes the Indonesian national police, a civil servant investigator, or any specific investigator vested with authority by law to conduct a criminal investigation. Articles 6 and 7 elaborate the position and function of the investigator. Furthermore, article no. 8 exemplifies that the investigator shall write an official record and submit it to the public prosecutor. Once the case file is deemed complete, the investigator should hand over the suspect and evidence to the public prosecutor. Article 19, paragraph 4 of ICPC mandates the investigation must be taken by the authorized investigator. In the event that an investigator without authorization takes a role in the investigation, they should remand the case document to an authorized investigator.(Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, n.d.)
Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Indonesian Public Prosecution Service
Undang-Undang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia (hereinafter “the Prosecution Service Law”) elaborates on mandates and competencies of public prosecution in the criminal system. This research will analyze using Article 30 that explicates prosecution services for criminal cases. Especially on paragraph 1, point d, which a public prosecutor only included in a specific crime case. Article 30 (1) (d) must be read in tandem with the general elucidation that stipulates the specific cases are about human rights cases and corruption cases. Furthermore, after being amended by Law No. 11 of 2021, Articles 35 and 35B mandate that public prosecutors can conduct investigations and/or establish an ad hoc fact-finding committee on gross violations of human rights. (Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Indonesian Public Prosecution Service, n.d.)
Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police
In a similar vein to the Prosecution Service, Undang-Undang Kepolisian Republik Indonesia (hereinafter “the National Police Law”) elaborates on the mandates and competencies of the Indonesian National Police. As codified in Article 13, enforcing the law is one of their mandates; therefore, being an investigator constitutes their functional role. As stipulated under ICPC, the national police are the general investigators without prejudice to other investigators stated in the law. By extension, national police competencies are prescribed by Articles 14 through 16.(Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, n.d.)
III. Institutional Mandates and Competencies of Police and Prosecutors in Indonesian Provision As stated, the recent ICPC introduces a novel functional differentiation of law enforcement that makes all judicial actors have a distinct demarcation. This doctrine was first introduced by
Émile Durkheim about the complexity of modern society that separates operational functions by social structure. The recent ICPC bolsters the functional differentiation as stated in Article 1, which expounds on the definition of each function comprehensively. Furthermore, the recent ICPC elaborated thoroughly on the frameworks’ coordination and judicial oversight. (Panjaitan et al., 2026)
The investigative phase is a crucial component of the Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS). In the context of criminal justice, the investigation serves as a fundamental aspect, as it ultimately leads to the establishment of evidence during trial proceedings. Prosecutors are obligated to substantiate their charges based on the investigation report prepared by investigators.
(Firmansyah, 2020)
Previous ICPC leads to overlapping authorities between prosecutors and police, especially in the investigative phase. As an example, in the Nyo Beng Seng murder case, police arrested some of the prosecutors due to a fraudulent investigation of the witness. On the contrary, the prosecutors claim that it’s their authority as stated in the Prosecutors Law. (Firmansyah, 2020) The recent ICPC emphasizes the establishment of a well-defined and organized framework of authority, which is essential for mitigating jurisdictional disputes and preventing overlaps in responsibilities among law enforcement agencies. This structured approach not only aims to clarify the roles and functions of various entities involved in the criminal justice process but also serves as a foundational element in the development of the ICJS framework in Indonesia.
As stated in the ICPC and the national police law, the police are recognized as the primary investigators, but this does not preclude other parties from also assuming an investigative role. Furthermore, the investigation report shall be submitted to prosecutors. Public prosecutors, as stated in the prosecutors’ law, also hold investigative competence, albeit restricted to specific cases. Written in Article 30 (1) (d) ICPC and in general elucidation, the specific cases mentioned are about gross human rights cases and corruption cases. (Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Indonesian Public Prosecution Service, n.d.)
Legal Certainty on the Febrie Ardiansyah Case
Neither the amendment of ICPC nor the differentiation function of judicial actors has successfully addressed contemporary, evolving legal complexities. In examining the complexities surrounding the Febrie Ardiansyah case, it is imperative to highlight the legal ambiguities that have emerged within the framework of the Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS). This case serves as a pertinent illustration of the challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial authorities in Indonesia, particularly in the context of overlapping jurisdictions and the delineation of investigative responsibilities.
Febrie Adriansyah, the former public prosecutor for special crimes (Jaksa Agung Muda Bidang Tindak Pidana Khusus), marks a watershed moment in Indonesia’s contemporary anti corruption landscape, bringing to the fore critical questions regarding how the judicial system in Indonesia works. (Tim detikcom, 2026)
The genesis of the active enforcement phase occurred on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, when the National Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor), utilizing a joint investigation framework with the Jakarta Metropolitan Police, executed simultaneous search warrants across twelve distinct locations. This sweeping operation targeted properties linked to systemic graft and money laundering probes spanning three state-connected economic sectors: the coal-fired power plant dispute, financial irregularities within the state insurer Asabri Ltd. (2020–2025), and corporate debt settlement fraud involving PT CBS and PT KNI (2020–2025).
The genesis of the legal dispute surfaced in May 2024 amid unprecedented inter-agency friction, characterized by unauthorized physical surveillance of Febrie Adriansyah by specialized police intelligence units. They responded to the reports filed by civil society coalitions with the Corruption Eradication Commission alleging state-asset undervaluation during a prosecutors’ office auction. In July 2026, a coordinated law enforcement operation spearheaded by the National Police executed multiple search warrants. The investigation led to the discovery of assets in the form of gold bullion and foreign currency reserves from Febrie Ardiansyah’s residence in Sentul and Cipete. The police then converted the assets into rupiah, worth 476 billion rupiah.
Following his formal resignation to preserve institutional decorum, Febrie Ardiansyah was designated as a criminal suspect under a multi-jurisdictional graft probe involving corruption and money laundering operations across state-owned enterprises. From an international legal perspective, the procedural trajectory of the Febrie Ardiansyah case introduces profound doctrine versus-practice contradictions, particularly concerning the concepts of prosecutorial discretion and conflicts of interest. The immediate transfer of investigative jurisdiction from the National Police to the public prosecutors creates an inherent institutional deadlock.
Neither the ICPC nor the other statutory bodies in Indonesia elaborate on the transfer of investigations. As mentioned in this research before, as stated by the ICPC, transfer investigations can be done after the investigator submits the investigation report to prosecutors. However, what happened in the Febrie Ardiansyah case is that the investigation report is not fully complete befor hand over to prosecutors.
The assumption is that investigative authority by the prosecutors is absent a formal notification of a complete investigation report (written as P-21 status) that can undermine the principle of legality and compromise legal certainty. Procedural circumvention breaches the separation of functions, challenging the integrity of evidence gathering and the fundamental requirements of the due process of law. Prosecutors have a dominus litis doctrine that makes prosecutors the controller of the case. However, the prosecutors must use the authority based on the law that is stated. This situation could render the ongoing case void ab initio. (Ady Thea AD, 2026)According to Boyamin in the interview with Hukum Online, the relationship between police investigators and public prosecutors is delineated as coordination and submission of a complete investigation report.(Hanifah Dwi Jayanti, n.d.)
The Febrie Ardiansyah case highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive legal framework that clearly defines the roles of prosecutors and police. The relationship between these entities is paramount, as it significantly influences the integrity of the investigative process and the ensuing judicial proceedings. Current legal provisions, while establishing a basis for collaboration, frequently fail to address the evolving complexities of modern legal challenges. Furthermore, this case illustrates the potential for conflict arising from the overlapping investigative powers assigned to both prosecutors and police. Such ambiguity can result in confusion and inefficiencies, ultimately jeopardizing the pursuit of justice.
Crucially, the decision to transfer this case highlights a significant gap in legal certainty within Indonesian law, particularly as the ICPC does not provide adequate solutions to address the complexities involved. This situation risks obscuring the distinct roles of police and prosecutors, leading to an increasingly ambiguous framework of authority. To rectify this, it is essential to implement legal reforms that not only clarify these roles but also ensure that both entities operate within their defined parameters. Such reforms would foster collaboration and ultimately strengthen the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Therefore, legal reforms must be enacted to delineate these roles clearly, ensuring that each entity functions within its designated scope while promoting collaboration to enhance the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The Febrie Ardiansyah case highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive legal framework that clearly defines the roles of prosecutors and police. The relationship between these entities is paramount, as it significantly influences the integrity of the investigative process and the ensuing judicial proceedings. Current legal provisions, while establishing a basis for collaboration, frequently fail to address the evolving complexities of modern legal challenges. Furthermore, this case illustrates the potential for conflict arising from the overlapping investigative powers assigned to both prosecutors and police. Such ambiguity can result in confusion and inefficiencies, ultimately jeopardizing the pursuit of justice.
Crucially, the decision to transfer this case lacks explicit legal backing within Indonesian law, raising concerns about its implications for the system itself. This action risks blurring the lines of authority between police and prosecutors, rendering these boundaries increasingly abstract. Therefore, it is imperative that legal reforms are enacted to delineate these roles clearly, ensuring that each entity functions within its designated scope while promoting collaboration to enhance the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Reference(S):
Statutory
Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Pub. L. No. 2 of 2002. Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Indonesian Public Prosecution Service, Pub. L. No. 16 of 2004. Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, Pub. L. No 20 of 2025.
Secondary sources
Ady Thea AD. (2026). Pengalihan Perkara Febrie Adriansyah Dinilai Janggal, Akademisi: Bisa Rusak Legitimasi Penegakan Hukum. HukumOnline.
Firmansyah, A. (2020). Tinjauan Hukum Kewenangan Jaksa dalam Pemeriksaan Tambahan menurut Asas Domius Litis berdasarkan KUHAP. Jurisdictie.
Hanifah Dwi Jayanti. (n.d.). Pengalihan Perkara eks Jampidsus ke Kejagung Berpotensi Gugurnya Status Tersangka dalam Praperadilan. HukumOnline.
Panjaitan, Y. A., Lucky, M., Chaliki, I., Simanjuntak, S. V., & Pratama, R. R. (2026). Penguatan Integrated Criminal Justice System Pada Kuhap Baru: Analisis Komparatif Pemidanaan dan Pembuktian Diferensiasi Fungsional. JIHHP: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora, Dan Politik. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v6i4
Tim detikcom. (2026). Duduk Perkara 3 Kasus hingga Febrie Adriansyah Jadi Tersangka. DetikNews.
