ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PENGAWASAN UPAYA PAKSA DALAM PROSES PENYIDIKAN (STUDI KOMPARATIF INDONESIA DENGAN BELANDA)

Abstract

Supervision of investigations is a vital instrument for protecting human rights, preventing abuse of authority, and maintaining the quality and legitimacy of law enforcement. In Indonesia, investigation oversight is still largely dominated by internal police mechanisms, while external supervision remains limited and reactive. In contrast, the Netherlands implements a more integrated oversight system through the active involvement of public prosecutors and commissioner judges from the early stages of the investigation. This study aims to compare the models of investigation supervision in Indonesia and the Netherlands, examine the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and formulate an ideal model of investigation oversight based on the principle of checks and balances. The research employs a normative legal method using legislative, conceptual, and comparative approaches.

The findings show that the Indonesian system has strengths in the separation of functions among law enforcement authorities and the availability of a relatively rapid internal oversight mechanism. However, it also has weaknesses, particularly the potential for conflicts of interest and weak external control. Conversely, the Dutch system is characterized by active, preventive, and judicial oversight exercised by public prosecutors and commissioner judges. Nevertheless, this system faces challenges, including procedural complexity and a high level of institutional dependence. This study concludes that an ideal investigation oversight model for Indonesia should strengthen integrated supervision by balancing internal and external oversight and combining preventive and responsive mechanisms to ensure accountability, protect fundamental rights, and promote a fair and credible criminal justice system.