ARTICLES · Volume 6, Issue 4 · 770-784 · August 2026 · Open Access

Reconstructing Public Accountability in Evidence Management within Law Enforcement Institutions

Wawan Setiawan, Andries Lionardo, Alfitri, Slamet Widodo
Download PDF Set Alert Get Rights Previous article Next article

Abstract

This study examines the reconstruction of public accountability in evidence management within law enforcement institutions through a relational–systemic governance perspective. The study employs a qualitative case study approach conducted at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Palembang. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observation, and document analysis involving prosecutors, evidence officers, administrative personnel, and institutional supervisors directly engaged in evidence management processes. The analysis focused on four principal accountability dimensions consisting of actors, objects, forums, and interaction mechanisms. The results reveal that accountability practices in evidence management remain predominantly procedural, hierarchical, and compliance-oriented. Accountability mechanisms mainly emphasize administrative reporting, inventory control, and procedural conformity, while broader dimensions such as transparency, public trust, collaborative governance, responsiveness, and organizational learning have not yet been optimally integrated. The findings further show that fragmented coordination among institutional actors, limited participatory accountability forums, and rigid bureaucratic communication mechanisms weaken accountability effectiveness and reduce institutional adaptability. This study develops the Relational–Systemic Accountability Model Based on Public Service (ARS–PP Model), which integrates collaborative institutional responsibility, public value orientation, participatory accountability forums, and adaptive interaction mechanisms into a unified accountability framework. The findings suggest that accountability effectiveness in evidence management depends on institutional integration, collaborative governance capacity, adaptive coordination systems, and public-oriented governance transformation.

References (78)

  1. Abdullah, H. O., Maqsood, M., & Nadeem, A. (2025). Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Standards, Chain of Custody, and Evidentiary Reliability in The Digital Era. Research Journal for Social Affairs, 3(5), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.71317/RJSA.003.05.0375
  2. Akinsola, K. (2025). The Role of Corporate Governance in Strengthening Compliance Frameworks. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.5126938
  3. Alderman, L. (2022). The Continuous Learning Framework: Applying accountability for widespread organisational change. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 22(4), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X221120294
  4. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOPART/MUM032
  5. Arnold, N. (2022). Accountability in transnational governance: The partial organization of voluntary sustainability standards in long-term account-giving. Regulation & Governance, 16(2), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/REGO.12357
  6. Aston, T., Faria, G., & Santos, Z. (n.d.). Social Accountability and Service Delivery Effectiveness: What is the Evidence for the Role of Sanctions? Background Paper.
  7. Batista, D., Mangeth, A. L., Frajhof, I., Alves, P. H., Nasser, R., Robichez, G., Silva, G. M., & Miranda, F. P. de. (2023). Exploring Blockchain Technology for Chain of Custody Control in Physical Evidence: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2023, Vol. 16, Page 360, 16(8), 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/JRFM16080360
  8. Baur, J. E., Carr, J., & Foster, D. (2026). Accountability in international organizations. In Handbook of Accountability Research: Politics, Law, Business, Work. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803924137.00029
  9. Baxter, D., Colledge, T., & Turner, N. (2017). A Study of Accountability in Two Organizational Learning Frameworks: Why Accountability for Learning is Critical. European Management Review, 14(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/EMRE.12112
  10. Birdayanthi, B., Yusriadi, Y., & Ikmal, I. (2025). Accountability and Transparency in Public Administration for Improved Service Delivery. Journal Social Civilecial, 3(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.71435/610633

Keywords

Citation

Setiawan, W., Lionardo, A., Alfitri, & Widodo, S. (2026). Reconstructing Public Accountability in Evidence Management within Law Enforcement Institutions. Daengku: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation, 6(4), 770–784. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.daengku4833
PublishedAugust 31, 2026
Volume6 - 2026
Pages770-784

Statements

Copyright (c) 2026 Wawan Setiawan, Andries Lionardo, Alfitri, Slamet Widodo