Daftar Sbmptn – The Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) today, through a plenary session chaired by the Speaker of the House, officially ratified the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP) into law. This ratification marks the end of Law Number 8 of 1981, which has served as the legal umbrella for criminal procedure for more than four decades.
This legislative decision was greeted with a mix of hopes for reform among law enforcement officials and strong concerns from the Civil Society Coalition. The government, through the Minister of Law and Human Rights (Menkumham), stated that the new KUHAP Law will come into effect on January 2, 2026, concurrently with the implementation of the recently passed Criminal Code (KUHAP), creating a criminal law ecosystem that is claimed to be more modern, adaptive, and oriented towards substantive justice.
Reform Mission: Adaptation and Restorative Justice
The ratification of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) Bill has long been driven by fundamental reasons: the need to modernize criminal procedure law to align with human rights demands, the development of transnational and cybercrime, and the mandate of legal reform.
A member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), which oversees legal affairs, explained that the new KUHAP Law includes 14 main reforms, which broadly aim to:
- Harmonization with the New Criminal Code: Aligning criminal procedures with new sentencing concepts, including restorative, rehabilitative, and restitutive justice approaches.
- Strengthening Human Rights and Due Process of Law: Emphasizing the rights of suspects, defendants, victims, and witnesses, and strengthening protection for vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities, children, women, and the elderly.
- Functional Differentiation: Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of investigators, public prosecutors, judges, and advocates, with the aim of reducing sectoral egos and increasing accountability.
- Procedural Modernization: Introducing new mechanisms, such as plea bargaining, deferred prosecution agreements for corporations, and digitizing the legal process for speedy and transparent trials.
- One important innovation is the establishment of a restorative justice mechanism, which provides the opportunity for out-of-court settlement of criminal cases in certain cases, from the investigation stage to prosecution.
Controversy and Civil Society Criticism
Although the House of Representatives (DPR) claims that the final draft of the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has undergone comprehensive deliberations and absorbed 99.9% of civil society’s aspirations, the legislative process has not escaped sharp criticism. The Civil Society Coalition for Criminal Procedure Code Reform, which includes various non-governmental organizations and academics, strongly opposed the process until the very last moment.
The Coalition’s criticism falls into two main areas:
- Procedural (Formal) Issues
Civil society accused the deliberation process of being rushed, closed-minded, and failing to meet the principles of meaningful public participation as mandated by the Constitutional Court’s ruling. They highlighted alleged manipulation in the use of civil society organizations to give the impression of legitimacy to the problematic draft. - Substantial Issues
The primary concern lies in the potential abuse of authority by law enforcement officials (APH), who are deemed to have excessive discretion without adequate judicial oversight (judicial scrutiny).
Critical issues highlighted include:
Authority for Coercive Measures: Although the latest draft claims to tighten the licensing mechanism for coercive measures such as seizures, searches, arrests, and detention, the Coalition remains concerned about the existence of a loose clause that allows APH to act without a judge’s permission in “urgent circumstances.”
Wiretapping and Account Blocking: Although the House of Representatives (DPR) confirmed that the issue of wiretapping has been removed from the bill and will be regulated in a separate law, concerns about account blocking remain. In urgent circumstances, blocking can be carried out without the permission of the chief justice of the district court, which is feared to open up opportunities for abuse.
Responding to this criticism, the Chairman of Commission III of the House of Representatives firmly denied the hoax allegations, particularly regarding the authority to wiretap and arbitrary arrest. “The conditions for arrest and detention in the new Criminal Procedure Code are actually stricter and prioritize the protection of human rights,” he said in a press conference after the plenary session.
Implementation Challenge: Official Integrity
Minister of Law and Human Rights Supratman Andi Agtas acknowledged the pros and cons. He stated that rejection was a natural part of the legislative process, but emphasized that the new Criminal Procedure Code was a step forward in the criminal justice system.
However, the ratification of the Criminal Procedure Code was only the beginning. Academics and legal practitioners emphasized that the perfection of a law would be meaningless without the integrity of law enforcement.
“The New Criminal Procedure Code would be meaningless without the integrity of law enforcement,” said a member of Commission III of the House of Representatives. This statement serves as a critical reminder that criminal procedure law reform requires a serious commitment from the Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, and judges to implement the principle of active judges (examining judges), ensure consistent due process, and limit the abuse of discretion.
With the law scheduled for implementation early next year, the major challenge now shifts to the government and the Supreme Court: preparing detailed implementing regulations and ensuring the readiness of law enforcement human resources, including extensive training, so that the spirit of restorative justice and human rights protection can be realized in the field, not just on paper.
Otherwise, civil society concerns about the potential for human rights violations and the heightened discretion of officials will become a real threat that must be resolved through judicial review at the Constitutional Court, continuing the political-legal controversy that was ratified today.