Attorney General's Office Reminded Not to Act Prematurely on Internal Enforcement Measures

The Attorney General’s Office’s (Kejagung) Organisational Resource Security Team (PAM SDO) efforts to safeguard internal integrity have come under scrutiny. Amid clean-up initiatives within the Adhyaksa Corps, an approach to enforcement deemed overly premature is feared to trigger demoralisation among regional prosecutors. This issue arose following the examination of the Assistant for General Criminal Affairs (Aspidum) at the South Sumatra High Prosecutor’s Office (Kejati Sumsel), Atang Pujiyanto, regarding alleged disciplinary violations. The case is seen as a critical moment for Kejagung to ensure that every internal security step is conducted objectively and professionally. Legal and prosecutorial observer Fajar Trio stated that PAM SDO serves a strategic function as an internal oversight instrument. However, he warned that this authority should not be exercised recklessly without sufficient evidence. “PAM SDO is indeed needed to uphold the institution’s honour. But if enforcement is carried out without objectivity and adequate preliminary evidence, it could instead foster fear within the prosecutor’s office,” Fajar Trio told reporters on Monday, 11 May 2026. According to him, the internal security team must prioritise the principle of due process of law before conducting examinations or other actions against prosecutorial officials. He also assessed that subjective factors such as personal closeness or certain sentiments must not influence the disciplinary enforcement process. A prosecutor’s track record, achievements, and integrity should be key components in the evaluation process. “Prosecutors with good performance should not become victims of unverified reports. All reports must be rigorously verified before follow-up action,” he said. Fajar warned that if the internal oversight mechanism is not handled carefully, the prosecutorial institution risks losing its best figures. This situation is assessed to potentially impact the reduced boldness of regional officials in making legal decisions. “If the approach is too repressive and subjective, regional prosecutors might fear taking discretionary steps due to concerns of being monitored or misinterpreted,” he added. He further noted that all intelligence activities for security must operate within legal bounds, including referencing Law No. 17 of 2011 on State Intelligence and the Prosecutor’s Law.