Abstract:
Corruption is an extraordinary crime with serious implications for state
stability, social justice, and public trust, requiring effective legal mechanisms
that also safeguard human rights. A crucial stage in corruption law
enforcement is the determination of suspects, as it initiates formal legal
proceedings and carries significant legal consequences. This study analyzes and
compares the mechanisms for determining suspects in corruption cases in
Indonesia and Thailand, as well as the role of specialized institutions in each
system. Using normative legal research with statutory and comparative
approaches, this study examines primary, secondary, and tertiary legal
materials through qualitative analysis. The findings show that Indonesia
applies a formal procedural mechanism under the Criminal Procedure Code
(KUHAP), combined with judicial oversight through pretrial review to protect
suspects’ rights. In contrast, Thailand centralizes authority in the National
Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) through a preliminary inquiry
mechanism that prioritizes institutional effectiveness but provides limited
judicial oversight at the early stage. These differences reflect distinct legal policy
choices in balancing anti-corruption effectiveness and human rights protection.
This study highlights the trade-off between procedural safeguards and
institutional efficiency in the two systems.
