By Yulia Rahmawati )*
Criminal law reform through the enactment of the National Criminal Code (KUHP) and the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) marks an important chapter in the development of law enforcement in Indonesia. This change is not merely an update of legal norms, but a paradigm shift from a rigid and retributive system toward a more humane, just, and recovery-oriented approach. The strengthening of restorative justice stands as one of the main pillars, reflecting the state’s seriousness in positioning the law as an instrument of substantive justice, rather than merely a tool of punishment.
Deputy Minister of Law Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, also known as Eddy Hiariej, emphasized that the new KUHAP explicitly reinforces the application of restorative justice through more orderly and accountable governance. This mechanism is no longer understood as a shortcut to terminate cases, but as a structured, transparent legal process that is officially recorded. Restorative justice may be applied from the investigation stage, but under strict conditions, including the offender being a first-time offender, the offense carrying a relatively light criminal penalty, and—most importantly—the consent of the victim. Without the victim’s consent, the legal process must proceed. This provision demonstrates that a recovery-oriented approach must not come at the expense of victims’ rights or legal certainty.
Furthermore, the application of restorative justice at the investigation and prosecution stages does not stand alone. The new KUHAP requires coordination among law enforcement agencies and validation through a court ruling. As a result, every case resolution is officially recorded and cannot be repeated for the same case. This design serves as an important safeguard to prevent restorative justice from being misused as a space for illicit compromise or off-the-record transactions. Here, the state’s effort to balance humanitarian values with the principle of accountability becomes evident.
The reform of the KUHAP also addresses prosecutorial authority, an aspect that has long been under scrutiny. Clearer regulations regarding settlement fines, guilty pleas, and deferred prosecution agreements for corporations signal the modernization of the criminal justice system. All these mechanisms remain under judicial supervision, ensuring that the judicial process is not eliminated, but rather responsibly streamlined. This approach reflects efficiency without sacrificing justice, while also providing legal certainty for all parties involved.
Another equally important aspect is the strengthening of the role of advocates as a pillar of a fair trial. The new KUHAP guarantees every person’s right to legal counsel from the earliest stage, even from the investigation phase. Advocates are not merely passive companions, but are granted the right to raise objections to actions taken by law enforcement officers. Such objections must be recorded in the official examination report and considered by the judge. This regulation opens space for transparency from the outset of the legal process and serves as an instrument to prevent abuse of authority.
From a broader criminal policy perspective, the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) have also emphasized that the National KUHP and the new KUHAP are not intended to ensnare citizens acting in good faith. Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra has described the enactment of the National KUHP as a historic moment to leave behind colonial criminal law and enter a new era of law enforcement grounded in Pancasila and national values. According to him, modern criminal law must protect citizens who do not commit wrongdoing and ensure humane and just legal processes.
A similar emphasis was conveyed by the Chair of Commission III of the DPR, Habiburokhman, who highlighted the existence of various “safeguards” within the new KUHP and KUHAP. These safeguards ensure that only acts that are truly wrongful and fulfill the elements of culpability are subject to criminal punishment. Judges are required to prioritize justice over mere legal certainty and to assess the defendant’s inner attitude or intent. In the context of criticism toward public officials, for example, an intention to advise or correct cannot be equated with an intention to demean dignity or attack honor. The new KUHAP even introduces a judicial pardon mechanism for minor offenses, as a concrete manifestation of restorative and proportional sentencing.
This paradigm shift is also reflected in the expansion of alternative sanctions such as community service, rehabilitation, and mediation. The state consciously limits excessive intervention into the private sphere by classifying certain sensitive offenses as complaint-based offenses. At the same time, the new KUHAP strengthens the protection of victims’ and witnesses’ rights, while enhancing accountability of law enforcement through investigative oversight and the use of visual recordings. The overall design shows that criminal law reform is not focused solely on offenders, but also on victims, society, and the integrity of the justice system itself.
Thus, the new KUHP and KUHAP represent a new direction for law enforcement in Indonesia. A measured restorative approach, prosecutorial authority under judicial supervision, and an expanded role for advocates form the foundation of a criminal justice system that is fair, humane, and balanced. The challenge ahead will undoubtedly lie in consistent and integrity-driven implementation. Nevertheless, from a normative standpoint, this reform has laid a strong framework for the realization of a national criminal law system that not only punishes, but also restores and upholds substantive justice for all citizens.
)* The author is an observer of criminal law