The scent of conflicting interests between law enforcement agencies has arisen. In print and electronic media, as well as in seminars, the issue has made the headlines.

In fact, the existing KUHAP, dubbed the “holy book” of guidelines for litigation in the country for decades, needs revising to ensure justice for all. The law, for example, provides inadequate protection to victims.

Perhaps Article 95 on compensation for victims is the only provision in the existing KUHAP that is deemed as protecting the interests of victims. The rest of the law talks mostly about the rights of perpetrators in the country’s criminal justice system.

So, for whom is the revision of the KUHAP?

The tug of war between law enforcement agencies has marked the course of the revision of the KUHAP, which has led to the issue of the principle of dominus litis (master of the lawsuit) and seems to conflict with the principle of functional differentiation. As a result, a question arises as to who and which is superior among law enforcement agencies in terms of investigation.

The point of explanation regarding why the issue of investigation is central in the revision of the KUHAP is because it determines other processes, such as the opportunity for someone to be named a suspect and the ensuing implementation of coercive measures against him/her.