Imran Eka Saputra, Muhammad Miftah Fauzan
Background: The Supervisory Board of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi [KPK]) plays a crucial role in overseeing corruption prevention and prosecution in Indonesia. The establishment of this board has raised legal and institutional questions regarding its authority and its relationship with KPK high officials. Aims and Objectives: This study aims to examine the authority of the Supervisory Board in supervising the prevention and prosecution of corruption, analyze the implementation of its supervisory functions, and explore the supervisory model applicable to the KPK. Materials and Methods: This research employs a normative legal approach. Data collection was conducted through a literature review, including relevant legal documents, laws, and regulations. The collected legal materials were systematically analyzed and presented as a logically interconnected unit. Results: The findings indicate that: (1) The Supervisory Board is an internal part of the KPK and is responsible for overseeing the execution of the KPK's duties and authorities. Based on Law No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court delineates the legal and institutional relationship between KPK high officials and the Supervisory Board, emphasizing that the board is prohibited from interfering in the judicial or pro justitia authority of KPK officials. (2) The Supervisory Board exercises its supervision through three main functions: (i) overseeing the KPK's duties and authorities, (ii) drafting and enforcing a code of ethics for KPK officials, and (iii) evaluating the performance of KPK leaders and employees. (3) The Supervisory Board conducts preventive supervision by requiring KPK high officials to notify the board regarding wiretapping, confiscation, and searches. This notification process is essential for ensuring internal synergy while maintaining the integrity of corruption investigations. Conclusion: The Supervisory Board plays a critical role in ensuring accountability within the KPK through preventive and evaluative oversight. While its authority is limited in judicial matters, its preventive functions contribute to internal governance and procedural integrity. Further legal refinements may be necessary to enhance the balance between supervisory authority and operational autonomy. © 2025 Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine.
Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Indonesia; Department of English Education, Faculty of Languages and Literature, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
