Editor’s Note
- Prosecutors: High Risks and Workload, Deficient Employment Conditions
- Performance of the Indonesian Public Prosecution Service through 2025
- Employment conditions are disproportionate to the burden and risks
- The workload and risks for public prosecutors in Indonesia are higher
- Prosecutors are the controllers of criminal cases
- Reform of the employment conditions for public prosecutors
- Employment conditions for public prosecutors to improve public finances
Prosecutors: High Risks and Workload, Deficient Employment Conditions
The Indonesian Public Prosecution Service is the law enforcement agency most trusted by the public and the law enforcement agency with the most progressive performance in handling corruption cases, optimizing supplementary penalties through compensation and asset confiscation, securing national strategic projects, including regional projects, and the strategic role of the State Attorney (JPN).
The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s actions have made a real and optimal contribution to saving trillions of rupiah in state revenue, which constitutes a source of non-tax revenue for the state.
In fact, in the past three months, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has transferred trillions of rupiah for the restoration of state finances, namely approximately 13 trillion rupiah (October 20, 2025) and 6.6 trillion rupiah (December 24, 2025), to Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa, in the presence of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.
Achievements of the Indonesian Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2025
According to the official report of the Indonesian Public Prosecutor’s Office, achievements in 2025 include the following: Realization of non-tax revenue of the state (PNBP) of approximately 19.8 trillion Indonesian rupees. In addition, the Public Prosecution Service carried out approximately 1,307 activities with a total budget of approximately INR 566.7 trillion. Strategic Development and Security Programs (PSN and PSD) were implemented by the Public Prosecution Service.
The recovery of state funds through the handling of corruption cases amounted to approximately INR 19 trillion and through civil proceedings to approximately INR 23 trillion. The Public Prosecution Service successfully returned approximately 5 million hectares of forest to the state through the Forest Management Task Force (Satgas PKH).
The revelation of mega-corruption cases with financial losses to the state amounting to hundreds of trillions of rupees demonstrates the Public Prosecution Service’s determination to eradicate corruption and recover the state’s financial losses.
The revelations about corruption cases particularly highlight problems that severely impact people’s lives, such as cooking oil shortages, tin mining, Jiwasraya Insurance, Pertamina, sugar imports, credit facilities, the purchase of Chromebook laptops, and so on.
As a result of this corruption, the state has suffered losses, both for the national and domestic economies.
Employment conditions are disproportionate to the burden and risks
Compared to prosecutors in other Asian countries, we lag far behind South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and other developed and developing countries.
Given that prosecutors in Indonesia earn salaries and allowances in the tens of millions, this poses a significant risk to prosecutors, who face financial difficulties, given the ever-rising cost of living for those with primary, secondary, and higher education, while prosecutors’ salaries and allowances remain stagnant.
Compared to neighboring countries, prosecutors in Malaysia enjoy a decent and competitive standard of living, around 20-70 million rupiah per month, excluding allowances and other benefits.
The workload and risks for prosecutors in Indonesia are heavier
Indonesia still lags behind, despite the fact that the workload and risks for prosecutors in Indonesia are indeed heavier (investigation, prosecution, and execution).
This comparison is not intended to glorify other countries, but rather to demonstrate a policy fact: countries that take the quality of law enforcement seriously also take improving the well-being of prosecutors seriously.
Even compared to the allowance for Indonesian judges, which the government recently increased from $46.5 million to $110.5 million per month by 2026, this policy simultaneously creates an increasingly visible and growing gap in the criminal justice system, especially compared to the allowances received by public prosecutors.
Nominally, the difference is a striking 1:5. This extreme difference in compensation ultimately raises questions about the fairness of the policy: why is one pillar of the judiciary being massively strengthened, while the Public Prosecution Service lags behind?
After all, the quality of a judicial decision depends heavily on the quality of the indictment and the evidence prepared by the prosecutor, especially in cases involving special crimes (corruption), where the investigation, prosecution, and trial are carried out by the prosecutor.
Consider, for example, the employment of Public Prosecution Service staff, particularly prosecutors, who are often far from home. Consider, for example, a prosecutor posted to Papua while living in Sumatra, where the ticket price per person is approximately 6 million rupiah. If the prosecutor brings his or her wife and three children, they should budget approximately 30 million rupiah for a one-way trip (60 million rupiah for a return trip), and that’s just for one round trip, not including accommodation, subsistence, and living expenses after their return. Prosecutor transfers usually last 2-3 years, with placements throughout Indonesia.
Prosecutors are the administrators of criminal cases
Prosecutors are not simply “office workers” who work alone behind a desk in a cool, air-conditioned room. In practice, prosecutors are directly involved in handling high-risk cases such as corruption, drugs, terrorism, treason, agrarian conflicts, and even the investigation of fugitives.
Physical risks, psychological pressure, and security threats are daily realities inherent to the profession of prosecutor. Prosecutors are the administrators of criminal cases (dominus litis). Every prosecution decision determines the legal fate of an individual and even the authority of the state.
A prosecutor can handle dozens of cases simultaneously, facing tight deadlines, public pressure, conflicts of interest, and media attention. The slightest error can lead to ethical, criminal, or administrative consequences.
The reform of the prosecution service in recent years has provided a clear direction. The handling of corruption cases has increased, the state has recovered billions of rupiah, internal oversight has been strengthened, and the digitalization of the system has helped close the dark corners of legal bureaucracy.
Behind these successes, however, one fundamental question remains unanswered: has this reform also been accompanied by adequate employment provisions for prosecutors?
Prosecutor Welfare Reform
Performance targets are becoming increasingly stringent, oversight more rigorous, sanctions more severe, and public expectations are rising. Prosecutors must work faster, more accurately, and more courageously, especially in strategic cases such as corruption and economic crimes.
However, these demands are not fully met by welfare reforms. Prosecutors’ salaries and benefits remain relatively stagnant, while physical risks, psychological stress, and safety risks are increasing. Reforms in performance evaluation, without improvements in welfare, could lead to institutional fatigue.
Objectively, the income of prosecutors still depends on the civil service salary system, where performance bonuses do not reflect the risks of the position and the complexity of their duties. Prosecutors must work quickly, professionally, responsibly, proactively, and with integrity. However, the salaries and benefits of public prosecutors remain inadequate, and the high workload and risks to personal and family safety pose significant challenges to maintaining integrity and professionalism within the public prosecutor’s office.
Reality shows that the well-being of public prosecutors and their staff is often disproportionate to the risks and workload they face. The state has not fully succeeded in providing adequate and appropriate support so that public prosecutors can perform their duties effectively and optimally without having to worry about financial matters and the safety of themselves and their families, especially when handling major cases (corruption, drugs, terrorism) and external pressures (threats, intimidation, criminalization).
Moreover, inadequate public prosecutors’ well-being makes them vulnerable to abusing their position and powers to meet their financial needs. The fact that public prosecutors engage in reprehensible acts cannot be denied and cannot be defended.
Any public prosecutor who abuses their powers deserves a severe punishment. In a rational constitutional state, however, punishment should be determined based on the underlying causes. Welfare for prosecutors does not mean pampering the system.
On the contrary, welfare is a tool for reform to: safeguard the independence and integrity of law enforcement, strengthen ethical resilience, attract and retain the best talent, and motivate them to perform optimally, particularly in the recovery of public funds.
In the context of recovering public funds, prosecutors must not only prove criminal elements but also ensure that state assets can be traced, seized, confiscated, and returned to the public treasury. This process requires specialized expertise, great precision, and courage.
Welfare for prosecutors in recovering public funds
Ironically, this workload and the associated risk are disproportionate to an adequate welfare system. While the state demands courage, loyalty, and high integrity from prosecutors in law enforcement and the recovery of state funds, it has not fully guaranteed the well-being and protection of prosecutors, let alone their families.
Improving the well-being of prosecutors is a strategic tool for safeguarding the integrity and independence of law enforcement. Prosecutors who operate with sufficient guarantees of well-being, safety, and legal protection will be better able to act professionally and have the courage to make legal decisions without fear or worry.
Public Prosecution Service staff face not only ethical risks but also physical and security risks. Cases of prosecutors dying while pursuing fugitives in corruption cases and threats during the handling of cases demonstrate that law enforcement in Indonesia often operates under extreme circumstances.
The state must prioritize the well-being of prosecutors as an integral part of its law enforcement and financial recovery strategy. This policy is not simply a budgetary burden, but a long-term investment in the sustainability of law enforcement.
Every rupiah spent on the well-being of prosecutors can yield multiple benefits by increasing the effectiveness of financial recovery and preventing budget leakage. ***
By: Rizki Adrian, SH. MH
The author is the head of the Intelligence Department at the Biak Numfor District Public Prosecution Office.
