Corruption in literal meaning is a crime, rottenness, bribery, immorality,
depravity, dishonest that use authority to enrich themselves/other persons/
corporation which could bring suffering toward state financial and economy,
depravity of the perpetrator of corruption crime can suffer the social life in a state
continuously. Thus, corruption is also mentioned as an extraordinary crime and
mentioned as transnational crime. Therefore, more modern ways should be used to
eliminate corruption crime. In this matter, the prosecutor is an independent
institution in conducting eliminating of corruption act that is established based on
the Law Number 16 of 2004. Currently, it becomes social consideration on the
presence of prosecutor by the emergence of new institution, i.e. Commission of
Corruption Eliminator (KPK) that is valued by most of parties has more superior
authority in conducting investigation of corruption crime. It brings influence on
how the presence of prosecutor in conducting investigation of criminal crime.
This research intended to know the presence of prosecutor as an institution that
has authority to conduct investigation by the attendance of Commission of
Corruption Eliminator (KPK) in handling corruption criminal crime. In fact, the
position of prosecutor and KPK is equal, by the reason based on the establishment
of respective institutions appropriately to the law; thus, between prosecutor and
KPK, there aren’t any hierarchic/ organizational relations. It makes the prosecutor
have not obedient to KPK. However these two institutions are related to coordinal
relations and supervision in order to increase their perceived respective roles by
the attendance of KPK. The prosecutor can more optimize its performance in
eliminating corruption. The conclusion from this legal writing is that the
corruption crime gradually spreads, thus it damages this state’s economy. Thus, it
is established institution so called KPK which is hoped to be able to cooperate
with the prosecutor in eliminating the perpetrator of corruption who in conducting
its credibility, it doesn’t exclude their respective authority in handling corruption
crime. Thus there will not be any overlapping authority of these respective
institutions. Thus, as suggestion from the author, it is better in conducting the
overwhelming of corruption crime, there is any coordination and having tight
mutual rows, either in the part of prosecutor and KPK, thus the efforts that are
conducted can be more effective and maximal in eliminating the enemy of human,
i.e. corruption.