CC BY
7
PROSECUTORIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRUPTION
CRIMES IN INDONESIA
1RIVALDO VALINI, 2MUHAMMAD AKIB, 3HENI SISWANTO, 4HIERONYMUS SOERJATISNANTA
Email Corresponding: hstisnanta.9@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In law enforcement, the prosecutor's office has an intelligence field to carry out the functions of investigation, security, and mobilization. These three functions are carried out to identify legal events and obtain information and data aimed at the interests of the leadership in making decisions on criminal acts, especially corruption. However, in carrying out law enforcement, intelligence authority has weaknesses, namely not pro-justicia, and there is a similarity of authority between fields, so it must be strengthened. Strengthening the authority possessed by the prosecutor's intelligence cannot be separated into three stages: pre-adjudication, which is related to the investigation function, adjudication related to security, and post-adjudication related to raising. In each stage, intelligence exercises its authority to find legal events and obtain data and information both internally and externally. This cannot be separated from prevention efforts that coordinate the sub-systems of the criminal justice system, namely the police, prosecutors, courts, and correctional institutions are expected to work together and can form an "Integrated Criminal Justice System."
Keywords: Law Enforcement, Corruption Crime, Prosecutor's Intelligence 1. INTRODUCTION
In principle, law enforcement is the process of making efforts to uphold or function legal norms in reality as a guide to behavior in traffic or legal relations in the life of society and the state. From its point of view, law enforcement can be seen from two angles: the subject angle and the object angle. From the subject's point of view, in this case, is the prosecutor's office as a law enforcer in charge of maintaining the rule of law of the nation. As a subject of law enforcement, the prosecutor's office has the authority to handle cases, particularly corruption crimes. There are seven types of corruption crimes that are obligatory for law enforcement, especially the prosecutor's office to fight them: harming state finances, bribery, embezzlement in office, extortion, fraudulent acts, conflict of interest in procurement, and gratuities. The objective angle in handling corruption crimes must be in accordance with statutory regulations.
The nature of prosecutorial intelligence as law enforcement intelligence is to find legal events based on information in reports from the public or related parties. This is done in an effort to assist the leadership (user) in determining policies so that, in making these policies, it will not cause turmoil that supports state order and security. The material was submitted to a special criminal through leadership. In principle, the work of intelligence supporting data and information to the leadership in the eradication of corruption is closely related to investigation, security and mobilization (Purwanti, Pranawa, & Purwadi, 2021).
In principle, the work of prosecutorial intelligence is will be related to the integrated criminal justice system, as it a criminal justice system has certain characteristics that distinguish it from other systems (Tolib Effendi, 2018). These characteristics are open system, purpose, value transformation, and control mechanism. In addition, the criminal justice system always involves and includes subsystems with the scope of each criminal justice process, including the police, prosecutors, courts, correctional institutions, and advocates (Widodo, 2012). The authority possessed by prosecutorial intelligence must be maximized and intended to carry out law enforcement processes and have intelligence products. However, in practice, this is not clearly seen because there is an imbalance between the authority of prosecutorial intelligence and other fields. In general, the principle of prosecutorial intelligence is a supporting system that requires cooperation, both internally and
externally. Thus, the authority of prosecutorial intelligence must be strengthened both internally and externally in order to assist or support leadership in determining policies on intelligence operations in restoring state losses.
In strengthening the authority of prosecutorial intelligence is to construct several things that will be related to pre-adjudication, adjudication and post-adjudication, because in essence in law enforcement of corruption, prosecutorial intelligence is the main motor in the discovery of legal events (Soepriadi & Leiwakabessy, 2023). The authority of Prosecutorial Intelligence will certainly be related to 3 layers, namely the layers of society, political, social and cultural layers and layers between law enforcement officials related to the police, prosecutors, judges and community organizations. This will also be related to synergizing in each stage, namely pre-adjudication related to investigation, adjudication related to security and post-adjudication related to raising Utomo (2010) Thus, the problems that will be studied in this research are related to the authority of prosecutorial intelligence in investigation, security and raising, as well as the authority to enforce corruption laws related to pre-adjudication, adjudication, and post-adjudication, and strengthen the authority of prosecutorial intelligence.
2. RESEARCH METHOD
This research uses normative juridical and empirical juridical methods. Normative juridical is based on the analysis of documentary materials such as laws and regulations, books, journals and other documents related to Prosecutor's Intelligence as Corruption Law Enforcement. Empirical data is based on data that reinforces the analysis obtained through interviews and data taken from several related agencies related to Intelligence. From some of these data, it is then processed into descriptive data in the form of narratives that use simple and standard language, which aims to make it easier for readers to understand the substance and purpose of the research.
3. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
a) The authority of the prosecutor's intelligence in investigating, securing and gathering
Intelligence has the functions of investigation (LID), security (PAM), and mobilization (GAL). Intelligence activities are defined as efforts, work and actions that are realized in the form of investigation, security, and mobilization carried out routinely, continuously and based on a fixed work procedure. Meanwhile, Intelligence Operations are business activities carried out based on a detailed plan beyond routine objectives, in a certain space and time period and carried out on the basis of orders from authorized superiors.
An investigation in general is the first step or initial effort to identify whether or not a criminal event has occurred. This investigation is carried out to conduct research based on laws and regulations to ensure that a criminal offense has occurred or not in a predetermined manner. Intelligence organizes the investigation function to attempt on its own initiative to find events suspected of being criminal offenses to carry out its duties or usually investigators only begin to carry out their duties after a report/complaint from an aggrieved party (Danarko, 2011).
Security consists of a series of activities carried out in a planned and directed manner to prevent and/or counter the efforts, work, activities of Intelligence, and/or Opposing Parties that are detrimental to national interests and security. Safeguarding is all efforts, activities and actions aimed at preventing successful efforts and actions of the opposing party to obtain information about our situation, preventing leakage and loss of information material and thwarting spying activities carried out by the opposing party. Raising consists of a series of efforts, work, activities and actions carried out in a planned and directed manner to influence targets to benefit national interests and security (Fernando, 2019). Favorable conditions that are the goal of mobilization can include ideological, political, economic, social, cultural and military fields or several fields only, or also only one of the fields (Witanto, 2012).
Investigation Prosecutorial intelligence is carried out in the framework of efforts carried out in a planned manner, gradual and sustainable to search, explore and collect information materials and
other supporting data that can be trusted sources through activities. and other supporting data whose sources can be trusted through operations that have been carried out.
operations that have been carried out. Information/data The information/data is processed in a process so as to produce ready-to-use information as intelligence products. as an intelligence product, where this intelligence product will be submitted to the authorized leadership or related users, which will be used by them. authorized leaders or related users, which will be used as input or consideration in making decisions.
input or consideration in making decisions. Implementation of the function investigation function carried out in the prosecutor's office is carried out by the Intelligence Division with coordination and leadership instructions regulated in the with coordination and leadership instructions regulated in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Procedure (SOP). The Prosecutor's Office's Judicial Intelligence Division is active to support the upholding of the rule of law and justice, both preventive and repressive. the rule of law and justice both preventively and repressively carry out and or participate in organizing public order and tranquility as well as securing national development in the prosecutor's jurisdiction. security of national development in the jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office concerned. In carrying out functions in the field of investigation, the Intelligence field has the same function as the Special Crimes field, namely the investigation function. An investigation is a series of investigative actions to search for and find an event suspected of being a criminal offense in order to determine whether or not an investigation can be carried out in the manner provided for in this law. this should be if a case has been investigated by the Intelligence field and it has been found that there is an event suspected of being a criminal offense, especially a crime of corruption, the special criminal field can immediately conduct an investigation without having to conduct an investigation again, because the investigation process carried out by the Intelligence field which is reported to the leadership has certainly found an event suspected of being a criminal offense (Kristiana, 2018). Prosecutorial intelligence in addition to has the duties and functions of investigation, security and security, in the amendments to the Prosecutor's Office Law there is an additional task, namely the Prosecutor's Office can carry out wiretapping based on special laws. Based on this, it shows that the Prosecutor's Office can conduct wiretapping on corruption crimes as an instrument in teaching the assets of the perpetrators of the crime and useful for the investigation. as an instrument in teaching the assets of the perpetrators of the crime and useful for uncovering the corruption crime. in this case revealing the events of the corruption crime. The fact is that currently that the condition of the authority of the prosecutor's intelligence in this investigation is the main point of the investigation. is the emphasis because it will find legal events, information and preliminary data that will be used as material for the investigation. information and preliminary data that will be used as material in making decisions by the leadership. leadership. However, the stage of mobilization and security is also a unity that cannot be separated. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the investigation, intelligence has the authority to handle cases. However, in reality there is uncertainty about the production produced by prosecutorial intelligence. by the prosecutor's intelligence. So that in the current implementation of the investigation, security and mobilization are the functions and authorities of prosecutorial intelligence. which is very strategic, because in principle that the prosecutor's intelligence works quietly to get the material to handle cases.quietly to obtain materials to support the materials used by the leadership in making policies. used by the leadership in making policies.
b) The Authority of Prosecutor's Intelligence in Law Enforcement of Corruption Crimes
Law enforcement is a process to realize legal desires into reality. Legal desires here are none other than the thoughts of the legislature formulated in the rule of law. The formulation of the maker's thoughts as outlined in the rule of law will also determine how law enforcement is carried out. Law enforcement serves as a protector of human interests, it is intended that human interests are protected the law must be implemented. The implementation of the law can take place normally and peacefully, but it can also occur due to violations of the law. In this case the law that has been violated must be enforced.
In practice, the current intelligence authority has a very extraordinary weakness so that intelligence is considered to have no product and is even underestimated by the Attorney General's Office. These weaknesses are related to the Prosecutor's Intelligence not being Pro-Justice, the Prosecutor's Intelligence does not have a product, and there is a spillover of authority and there are restrictions on the authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence in carrying out its role and function to conduct investigations, security and mobilization (Nugroho & Wahyudi, 2018). Due to the weakness of the authority so far, the Prosecutor's Intelligence has a product but when it is conveyed to the user and submitted to the prosecutor's office, it is as if the intelligence does not carry out its authority (Mahyudin, 2016). Therefore, the existing authority needs to be added and must be strengthened by leadership policy.
The authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence will certainly be closely related to the stages of handling corruption cases carried out by the Prosecutor's Intelligence. The handling of cases by the Prosecutor's Intelligence is different from other fields, because in principle the role of Intelligence in handling cases is very influential, especially in corruption crimes (Asimah, 2020). In principle, the substance of criminal procedure law, both regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and scattered in various laws and regulations relating to criminal law enforcement, is in the application stage or criminal justice process.
Normatively, the criminal justice process can be divided into 3 (three) stages, namely the preadjudication stage, the adjudication stage, and finally the post-adjudication stage. Rosa (2023) These stages are in principle efforts to handle cases by the Prosecutor's Intelligence Service against corruption crimes. The Pre-adjudication stage can be interpreted as the examination of criminal cases in the context of investigations carried out by the Prosecutor's Intelligence. Furthermore, the adjudication stage is an examination related to proving the legal aspects carried out by the judiciary. The last stage is the post-adjudication stage, namely the guidance of convicts carried out by the Prosecutor's Office.
Prosecutorial intelligence in carrying out this stage in principle in the pre-adjudication stage is carried out by searching for events, collecting evidence and statements of suspects, meaning that in this implementation it can be done by means of pulbaket. Furthermore, adjudication is carried out by means of investigation and investigation of further provisions in the determination of corruption suspects. And the last will be related to the prosecution and confiscation of assets owned by the defendant in the crime of corruption. The substance of the stages of case handling by the Prosecutor's Intelligence can be seen in the following table:
Table. Stages of Case Handling by Prosecutor's Intelligence
No Tahapan Uraian Peran Intelijen Kejaksaan
Searching for Unlawful Acts
Indication of state loss
1 Pre-Adjudication Investigation If it is found that it is not a corruption crime, it is handed over to the authorized law enforcement.
If it violates administration and has the potential to be returned, it will be deposited through non-tax state revenue at the Prosecutor's office.
2 Adjudication Security Security of Human Resources and Case Security through the Fugitive Apprehension Team
3 Post-Adjudication Raising Asset Tracing and Asset seizure up to execution
Based on the handling of the case above, it can be seen that the role of the Prosecutor's Intelligence Principle lies in Pre-Adjudication, which means that in terms of the important role of Prosecutor's Intelligence there is in the investigation stage of an alleged corruption crime. Intelligence in this case must search for and find legal events that can be used as evidence and information material for handling corruption crimes that occur. Thus, in terms of investigations into criminal acts of corruption, the role of Intelligence in exercising authority is very strategic and very important for the disclosure of criminal acts of corruption.
In the pre-trial Intelligence stage, the Attorney General's Office is authorized to do several things, namely related to requesting and obtaining information data from government agencies or private institutions that have the authority to manage certain data and information. This means that in conducting the pre-adjudication stage of Intelligence, the Prosecutor's Office can request data from government agencies and institutions as well as private parties. The pre-adjudication stage of this new authority will also be related to the identification of corruption transactions, meaning that Prosecutorial Intelligence has the authority to establish identification guidelines for all transactions that are considered to have caused state losses. Thus, for all these guidelines, prosecutorial intelligence together with the Attorney General's Office and the finance minister and in collaboration with banks if there are transactions between banks to compile and establish guidelines for the identification of transactions arising from corruption crimes committed by perpetrators or suspects. In the adjudication stage, the Prosecutor's Office Intelligence makes efforts to secure cases and secure human resources before or during the trial process. Safeguarding organizational resources is in principle to assist the leadership in searching for fugitives or suspects who will become defendants in corruption crimes. In reality, someone who has been declared a defendant has resistance to law enforcement to escape, so that in this adjudication stage the Prosecutor's Intelligence in the Safeguarding organizational resources field exercises its authority to secure it (Pedrason, 2018). Based on the regulation of the Attorney General Number 6 of 2017 Article 825 paragraph (2) determines that the Subsection of Defense and Security, Deterrence, Foreigner Supervision, Security of Prosecutorial Organizational Resources, and Security of Case Handling, hereinafter referred to as Subsection A.2, has the task of preparing materials for the preparation of work plans and programs, planning, implementing, controlling, and assessing intelligence activities and intelligence operations as well as intelligence administration, planning and implementing mapping of potential threats, interference, obstacles and challenges, as well as providing technical support in intelligence to other fields in the State Attorney's Office and the State Attorney's Office Branch, coordination and cooperation, evaluation and reporting, preparing estimates of intelligence conditions, fostering and providing technical guidance on intelligence and intelligence administration related to the field of defense and security, as well as the deterrence sector, and supervision of foreigners, securing organizational resources, and securing case handling in its jurisdiction.
Based on this, in the adjudication stage, the prosecutor's intelligence must make efforts to pursue and secure suspects or defendants who commit corruption crimes who will flee. This happens because the suspect or defendant will not be responsible. Section A of the prosecutor's intelligence is tasked with preparing planning materials and implementing mapping of potential threats, disturbances, obstacles and challenges in the social, cultural and community fields based on data and information originating from work units within the Assistant for Intelligence, District Attorney's Office and District Attorney's Office Branch in their jurisdictions.
This adjudication stage will lead to efforts that are security in nature against all relevant fields, so as to provide recovery of state losses incurred (Kamagi, 2019). Therefore, a very strategic concept that can be carried out by the Attorney General's Intelligence is to collaborate in every field that can assist in handling corruption crimes and can contribute on the basis of the information obtained. This will be related to the preparation of planning materials and the implementation of mapping potential threats, interference, obstacles and challenges in the economic and financial fields based on data and information originating from work units within the Intelligence Assistant, District Attorney's Office and District Attorney's Office Branch in their jurisdictions.
The Post-Ajudication Phase of the Prosecutor's Office Intelligence has the authority to Raise. The mobilization referred to in corruption crimes is to execute the assets of the suspect or defendant. The execution of assets aims to secure the assets owned by the perpetrator or suspect which are considered to have come from the proceeds of corruption crimes. The execution of these assets is also used to recover losses suffered by the State, which normatively the assets owned by the perpetrator or suspect of a corruption crime must be used as collateral before a permanent judge's decision to carry out an auction execution to cover and compensate for the State's losses. On the basis of these three stages, namely pre-adjudication, adjudication and post-adjudication, the prosecutor's intelligence in exercising its authority needs to be strengthened because in principle the prosecutor's intelligence has a very strategic function in conducting investigative efforts related to pre-adjudication, security related to adjudication and raising related to post-adjudication. Therefore, in each of these stages, the prosecutor's intelligence must be strengthened both in terms of policy and authority that will maintain security and order.
c) Strengthening the Prosecutor's Intelligence Authority in Corruption Law Enforcement
The essence of prosecutorial intelligence has a very strategic investigative authority, namely related to infiltration, infiltration, wiretapping. These three things prove that prosecutorial intelligence has an important role in handling corruption crimes whose purpose is to restore state losses. The fact is that currently there are many state losses, intelligence has performed its function, but the prosecutor's intelligence is considered to have no role. Therefore, it is necessary to map the strategic intelligence function to restore state losses. The function of intelligence in the discovery of data and information and early prevention will certainly be related to the authority possessed by the prosecutor's intelligence relating to investigation, security and mobilization. This function in the law enforcement of corruption has a close relationship with the investigation, security and mobilization that serves to restore state losses, secure cases, and safeguard organizational resources from the threat of certain parties that will damage the security and comfort of society and the state (Tambunan, 2015).
The authority of prosecutorial intelligence at this time requires strengthening the authority of prosecutorial intelligence in law enforcement of corruption. This will lead to strengthening which will build synergy between internal and external institutions of the prosecutor's office and build synergy with other law enforcement intelligence. With the strengthening of the authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence, at the pre-adjudication, adjudication and post-adjudication stages and will build internal and external cooperation with other law enforcement intelligence handling corruption crimes. corruption crime.
The development of an increasingly sophisticated era has made criminal acts increasingly varied. To be able to prove that a criminal offense has occurred requires considerable effort. Wiretapping is one of the ways that can be done to prove that a criminal offense has occurred and can be a deterrent against the growing mode of crime. Initially, wiretapping activities were carried out as efforts to find out confidential information from other people or other parties or a certain group were still carried out manually and conventionally. This means that at that time efforts to find out confidential information from others were still carried out by relying on one's own physical abilities and not using any technology. In contrast to today's era of modernization and globalization, tapping activities can already be carried out using sophisticated technology so that efforts to find out information belonging to other people that is private are increasingly easy to do.
Wiretapping or interception is basically a disturbance that violates human rights, especially a person's right to privacy in communication. In Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, it is stated that "wiretapping" is the activity of listening to, recording, deflecting, altering, inhibiting, and/or recording the transmission of electronic information and/or electronic documents, either using communication cable networks or wireless networks such as electromagnetic beams or radio frequencies, including examining packages, posts, correspondence, and other documents. In the context of the authority possessed by the Prosecutor's Intelligence, in the wiretapping mechanism, the amended Prosecutor's Law provides the following clause: In addition to carrying out the duties
and authorities as referred to in Article 30, Article 30A, and Article 30B, the prosecutor's office shall conduct wiretapping based on special laws governing wiretapping and organize a monitoring center in the field of criminal acts and new regulations are needed.
On the basis of the wiretapping authority in the Prosecutor's Office Law, the main substance that must be considered is that the wiretapping is carried out by not violating the rights of everyone. Because in principle the wiretapping that is carried out and becomes a new breakthrough must be immediately compiled Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) in terms of wiretapping, so that it can be carried out in accordance with what is expected by the government, especially for the prosecutor's office. Thus the addition of this authority is an authority that can be carried out by the Prosecutor's Intelligence. Based on the new authority in the Prosecutor's Office Law, the new construction that will be built on the authority of Prosecutorial Intelligence is as follows
1. request and obtain data and information from government agencies and/or private institutions that have the authority to manage data and information, including from government agencies and/or private institutions that receive reports from certain professions.
2. establish identification guidelines for Transactions of corruption crimes.
3. coordinating efforts to prevent criminal acts of corruption with relevant agencies.
4. providing recommendations to the government regarding efforts to prevent criminal acts of corruption.
5. representing the government of the Republic of Indonesia in international organizations and forums related to the prevention and eradication of corruption.
6. organizing anti-corruption education and training programs; and
7. organizing socialization of prevention and eradication of corruption.
From some of the new authorities that will strengthen the authority of the prosecutor's intelligence, in principle, the authority cannot be separated from the post-adjudication, adjudication, and postadjudication stages. In the Pre-adjudication stage, the prosecutorial intelligence is authorized to do several things, namely related to requesting and obtaining information data from government agencies or private institutions that have the authority to manage certain data and information. This means that in conducting the pre-adjudication stage, the Prosecutor's Office Intelligence can request data from government agencies and institutions as well as private parties. The pre-adjudication stage of this new authority will also be related to the identification of corruption transactions, meaning that Prosecutorial Intelligence has the authority to establish identification guidelines for all transactions that are considered to have caused state losses.
Furthermore on efforts to prevent corruption in this latest authority Prosecutor's Intelligence to make efforts to prevent criminal acts of corruption. corruption. In general, intelligence has deterrence and early prevention of all threats to state security that are oriented towards prevention. against all threats to state security that are oriented towards prevention.
However, this new authority is inseparable from prevention efforts in coordination with other law enforcement or related agencies in handling corruption crimes. Because this prevention will be related to the Integrated Criminal Justice System. The Integrated Criminal Justice System is a system that is able to maintain a balance of interests, both the interests of the state, the interests of the people, and the interests of the government. protection of interests, both the interests of the state, the interests of society, and the interests of individuals, including the interests of perpetrators and victims of crime. The sub-systems of the criminal justice system are police, prosecutor's office, court and correctional institution are expected to be able to cooperate and can form an "Integrated Criminal Justice System". The following is a description of the criminal justice system that must be considered by Prosecutor's Intelligence (Noval, Nofrial, & Nurkhotijah, 2022).
Gatribar 1 : Lapisan-lapisan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana
The criminal justice system in each of these layers has the role of Prosecutor's Intelligence in handling corruption crimes. Because in reality at this time if there is a handling of corruption, it will cause turmoil, especially among the community in this case in layer 1. This layer of society, intelligence certainly has a very strategic role in terms of mobilizing in all matters that will help law enforcement of corruption. In this layer of society, the role of intelligence is to mobilize because the community has the right to fight if there is a criminal act of corruption, whether it is not being investigated or the legal process is underway. This first layer will also be related to the adjudication stage, which in principle will build a role in securing human resources, namely the community. This means that in the criminal justice system, the community is a subject that must be protected so that it is not indicated to commit crimes such as corruption that harm state finances. This adjudication stage will also be related to how the prosecutor's intelligence makes efforts to provide guidance and persuade the public so as not to cause excessive turmoil over the occurrence of corruption crimes, so that the prosecutor's intelligence can make persuasive approaches to community groups. Layer 2 is related to the economy, technology, education and politics, this is the same role of intelligence with the community, namely making efforts to raise matters related to the economy, technology, education and politics. This means that if there is turmoil in these layers, the role of the Attorney General's intelligence is to mobilize in order to provide input related to the handling of corruption crimes. This will have implications for real life that occurs in the four fields that will disrupt order and security for the community, especially for the nation's economy. Therefore, the strategic effort made by intelligence is to mobilize. This second layer is also related to the adjudication stage which focuses on direct approaches to stakeholders or officials involved in order to obtain clear information and accurate data. Because if we look back, the general public towards this second layer will create a division of interests, especially in the economic and political fields. In practice, this often happens and must get special efforts by prosecutorial intelligence by making prevention efforts.
Layer 3 will be related to law enforcement officials who handle corruption crimes. This means that the current layer has its own provisions included in the laws and regulations related to the police, prosecutors, courts and prisons. However, even though each APH has its own regulations for handling corruption crimes, they also work individually. This means that the third layer should be able to make various efforts and integrated cooperation that can provide benefits to the recovery of state losses. This third layer will be related to the security carried out by law enforcement officials (prosecutors, police, courts, and penitentiary institutions) in combating criminal acts of corruption. As such, this pre-adjudication stage should prioritize security by coordinating between institutions and agencies in handling corruption crimes. Thus, the substance that must be built is how the harmonization between the four law enforcement agencies in handling corruption crimes is the role of each Intelligence. So that it will provide efforts that are integrated prevention by Intelligence. Muladi emphasized that the meaning of integrated criminal justice system is synchronization and harmony which can be distinguished in:
1. Structural synchronization
Synchronization in this case is related to APH which has the authority to handle corruption cases. This synchronization is related to the role of prosecutorial intelligence in obtaining information, data and legal events that will be used as initial material in the investigation or in the pre-adjudication stage. So that the existence of uniformity or coordination can make it easier for prosecutorial intelligence in solving corruption crimes. In synchronizing this structure, it cannot be separated from the existence of integrated or integrated cooperation which will build harmonization between institutions in law enforcement of corruption.
2. Substantial synchronization
In this case what is done is to harmonize the provisions contained in each legal umbrella both in the prosecutor's office, police, judiciary and community institutions towards cooperative efforts in handling humanist corruption. This means that each institution has a policy, but it can be synchronized by prioritizing collaboration in intelligence in handling corruption crimes followed by policy. Although currently there is cooperation in handling corruption between the police and the prosecutor's office, in practice it is rarely carried out and stands in the territory of each egonism. Therefore, it is necessary to synchronize the laws of each institution and other laws and regulations.
3. Cultural synchronization
Cultural synchronization or culture that occurs at this time is related to the number of people who deliberately provide loopholes for perpetrators of corruption to roam outside the detention center, so that this becomes a habit that must be changed and there must be synchronization on this matter. So that unison and harmony in living the views, attitudes and philosophies that thoroughly underlie the course of the criminal justice system ". Whereas the essence of the function of the criminal justice system is more than that, namely to uphold justice, eradicate crime and prevent crime. Therefore, the author believes that in a criminal justice system, there should be no assumption that each component works independently and does not pay attention to each other if it is to form an integrated criminal justice system (Rahman & Octavia, 2022).
Thus, prosecutorial intelligence must have a strategy in combating and preventing corruption that involves several system approaches. The system approach in question is related to several agencies or institutions, namely the Police, the Prosecutor's Office, the Court and the Correctional Institution, which are sub-systems related to each other in carrying out their duties and functions. Conceptually, this will be related to the principle of functional differentiation, which means that each law enforcement officer in the criminal justice system has its own duties and functions that are separate from one another. This principle places each law enforcer on an equal footing with one another, the only difference is in their respective authorities without one being higher than the other. The law enforcement officers referred to in this case include investigators and investigators, public prosecutors, and courts. In connection with this, the Criminal Procedure Code has regulated the authority of each law enforcement officer. Thus, the principle of functional differentiation will build synergy in handling corruption crimes, both closed and open. So that this synergy will be closely related to the handling of corruption cases relating to the pre-adjudication, adjudication and postadjudication stages. The authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence will certainly be related to 3 elements, namely society, politics, social and culture and law enforcement officials.
4. Conclusion
Based on the description above, in this study it can be concluded that the intelligence function of the prosecutor's office can be interpreted as an effort, work and action that is realized in the form of investigation, security, raising which is carried out routinely, continuously and based on a fixed working procedure. In carrying out functions in the field of investigation, the Intelligence field has the same function as the Special Crimes field. The fact is that the current condition of the authority of the prosecutor's intelligence in this investigation which is the point of emphasis because it will find legal events, information and preliminary data that can be used to investigate the case because it will find legal events, information and preliminary data that will be used as material in making decisions by the prosecutor. will be used as material in making decisions by the leadership.
In practice, the current intelligence authority has weaknesses related to the Prosecutor's Intelligence not being Pro-Justice, and there is a similarity of authority. Normatively the criminal justice process can be divided into 3 (three) stages, namely the pre-adjudication stage, the adjudication stage and the post-adjudication stage. The three stages are related to the authority of Prosecutorial Intelligence which needs to be strengthened because in principle prosecutorial intelligence has a very strategic function. Strengthening the authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence, at the preadjudication, adjudication and post-adjudication stages and will build internal and external cooperation with other law enforcement intelligence handling corruption crimes. In strengthening other than wiretapping, there are 8 additional authorities that are sought to strengthen the authority of prosecutorial intelligence, starting from obtaining information to coordinating with other law enforcement or related agencies in handling corruption crimes. Because this prevention will be related to the Integrated Criminal Justice System by the prosecutor's intelligence. Thus a strategy is needed in the eradication and prevention as well as operational standards for the eradication of corruption by the prosecutor's intelligence. REFERENCES
[ 1] Asimah, D. (2020). Menjawab Kendala Pembuktian Dalam Penerapan Alat Bukti Elektronik To Overcome The Constraints Of Proof In The Application Of Electronic Evidence. Puslitbang Hukum Dan Peradilan Ditjen Badan Peradilan Militer Dan Tata Usaha Negara, 3, 97-110.
[2] Danarko, B. (2011). Peran Intelijen Kejaksaan Dalam Pengungkapan Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Kejaksaan Negeri Trenggalek Jawa Timur. Uns (Sebelas Maret University).
[3] Fernando, Y. (2019). Pelibatan Organisasi Masyarakat Dalam Intelijen Keamanan Nasional. Jurnal Kajian Stratejik Ketahanan Nasional, 2(2), 106-113.
[4] Kamagi, S. S. (2019). Keterangan Ahli Sebagai Alat Pembuktian Atas Adanya Tindak Pidana Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lex Crimen, 8(5).
[5] Kristiana, Y. (2018). Independensi Kejaksaan Dalam Penyidikan Korupsi: Pt Citra Aditya Bakti.
[6] Mahyudin, E. (2016). An Overview Upon The Challenge Of Intelligence In Counter-Terrorism In Indonesia. Intermestic: Journal Of International Studies, 1(1), 23-35.
[7] Noval, M., Nofrial, R., & Nurkhotijah, S. (2022). Analisis Yuridis Proses Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Penipuan Melalui Pembayaran Elektronik Untuk Mewujudkan Perlindungan Hukum. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 2(1), 29-37. Doi:10.35912/Jihham.V2i1.1579
[8] Nugroho, T. A., & Wahyudi, T. (2018). Peran Intelijen Keimigrasian Dalam Rangka Antisipasi Terhadap Potensi Kerawanan Yang Ditimbulkan Oleh Orang Asing Di Wilayah Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum, 12(3), 275-293.
[9] Pedrason, R. (2018). Intelijen Dan Lingkungan Strategis. Jurnal Cendekia Waskita, 2(1).
[10] Purwanti, A., Pranawa, B., & Purwadi, P. (2021). Deteksi Dini Oleh Intelijen Polri Dalam Mengantisipasi Gangguan Kamtibmas Pada Pilkada Di Boyolali. Jurnal Bedah Hukum, 5(1), 1-13.
[11] Rahman, R., & Octavia, V. (2022). Pola Interaksi Sosial Di Warung (Studi Kasus Pada Interaksi Sosial Di Warung Sembako Di Kelurahan Pulogebang Kota Jakarta Timur). Jurnal Studi Ilmu Sosial Dan Politik, 2(2), 131-141.
[12] Rosa, L. (2023). Perspektif Kebijakan Perampasan Aset Hasil Tindak Pidana Korupsi Tanpa Melalui Pemidanaan Di Indonesia. Universitas Lampung.
[13] Soepriadi, D. N., & Leiwakabessy, T. F. (2023). Efek Moderasi Moralitas Individu Terhadap Hubungan Pengendalian Internal Dan Kecendrungan Kecurangan. Goodwood Akuntansi Dan Auditing Reviu, 1(2), 165175.
[ 14] Tambunan, I. M. (2015). Mekanisme Pelaksanaan Intelijen Kejaksaan Dalam Mengungkap Tindak Pidana
Korupsi Di Kota Yogyakarta. Uajy. [ 15] Tolib Effendi, S. (2018). Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Perbandingan Komponen Dan Proses Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Beberapa Negara: Mediapressindo.
[16] Utomo, W. (2010). Optimalisasi Kinerja Kon Tra Intelijen Dalam Peng Amanan Rahasia Negara. Jurnal Ketahanan Nasional, 15(2), 17-29.
[17] Widodo, J. P. (2012). Reformasi Sistem Peradilan Pidana Dalam Rangka Penanggulangan Mafia Peradilan. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 12(1), 108-120.
[18] Witanto, D. (2012). Dimensi Kerugian Negara Dalam Hubungan Kontraktual: Suatu Tinjauan Terhadap Risiko Kontrak Dalam Proyek Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Instansi Pemerintah: Mandar Maju.
