By: Nisa Amalia
The passage of the Draft Law on Amendments to Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Law (Criminal Procedure Code Bill or RUU KUHAP) marks a new chapter in strengthening Indonesia’s national legal system.
The government, together with the House of Representatives (DPR RI), demonstrates a strong commitment to building a criminal justice system that is not only procedurally efficient but also substantively fair.
The revision of the KUHAP has become increasingly urgent following the enactment of the new Criminal Code (KUHP), which will take effect in January 2026 and introduces a modern criminal law paradigm rooted in human rights principles.
Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights, Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, considers the renewal of the KUHAP as an unavoidable necessity.
According to him, the new KUHP has moved away from a retributive legal approach toward corrective, restorative, and rehabilitative justice.
This paradigm shift requires adjustments in the criminal procedural system to prevent inconsistencies in the enforcement of criminal law.
The existing KUHAP is still framed within a crime control model, prioritizing efficiency and expediency in case resolution, whereas the future system aims to uphold a fair process that emphasizes the protection of individual rights from the outset of legal proceedings.
The fundamental differences between the current system and the approach promoted by the new KUHP are quite pronounced.
Under the existing framework, detention by investigators is heavily time-restricted and geared toward expediting prosecution, often placing suspects in a position of presumed guilt.
This is in stark contrast to the due process of law principle — the cornerstone of the new KUHP — which places the presumption of innocence at the forefront.
Edward Hiariej explained that the current KUHAP was not built on this spirit, making a comprehensive revision crucial to prevent normative conflicts once the new KUHP is implemented.
The urgency of updating the KUHAP was also emphasized by Judicial Officer at the Legal and Public Relations Bureau of the Supreme Court, Riki Perdana Raya Waruwu.
He argues that the renewal is not merely normative but also closely tied to ensuring justice for all parties involved in the criminal justice system.
According to him, the current KUHAP has not fully embodied the principle of balance between the rights of suspects and victims.
This is evident from the limited scope of victim protection, whereas suspects’ rights are more extensively and meticulously regulated.
The new KUHP recognizes victims’ rights more progressively — including the protection of their identities and guarantees of social support — which must be supported by a criminal procedure law offering equivalent safeguards.
Moreover, Riki pointed out that the current KUHAP does not provide sufficient flexibility for judges to uphold substantive justice.
One example he cited is Article 193 Paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, which mandates that judges must impose punishment once guilt is established.
This is inconsistent with Article 54 Paragraph (2) of the new KUHP, which allows judges to consider the background of the act, the offender’s personal circumstances, and the impact of the event in determining whether punishment should be imposed.
Such normative inconsistencies could lead to chaos in legal practice if not promptly harmonized.
Similarly, Rapin Mudiardjo, Chairman of the Alumni Association of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (ILUNI FHUI) for the 2021–2024 period, regards the passage of the KUHP as a significant milestone in Indonesia’s legal development.
He noted that the lengthy process of drafting the KUHP reflects the nation’s maturity in building a more humane and adaptive national legal system.
However, he also stressed that the successful implementation of the KUHP largely depends on the readiness of its accompanying procedural law.
Without a new KUHAP, the humanistic values embodied in the KUHP would be difficult to fully realize.
Rapin asserted that the new criminal law system must guarantee legal certainty while also responding to the people’s sense of justice.
This can only be achieved if both the KUHAP and KUHP are aligned under the same legal-political vision.
In other words, procedural law must not merely serve a technical function but must also be part of the broader national legal reform agenda that upholds the supremacy of law.
The inclusion of the KUHAP Bill in the 2025 Priority National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) demonstrates that the government is not merely drafting regulations but is strategically shaping the direction of future legal development.
The DPR RI’s decision to designate the bill as a legislative initiative reflects inter-institutional consensus to establish a more balanced and just criminal procedure system.
With the new KUHP’s implementation date only months away, the reform of the KUHAP has become a strategic task that must be completed without delay.
The government has shown concrete steps through inter-agency coordination and the preparation of a comprehensive academic manuscript.
Meanwhile, the legislative process within the DPR serves as a crucial forum for formulating new norms that ensure justice is not merely a principle but a lived reality within every legal process.
The revision of the KUHAP is not merely a procedural adjustment but a systemic improvement aimed at addressing contemporary challenges.
Through this renewal, the government reinforces its commitment to upholding national legal supremacy oriented toward certainty, utility, and justice.
The grand agenda of legal reform — initiated through the enactment of the new KUHP — will be more perfectly realized through the refinement of the KUHAP, in order to establish a criminal law system that fairly and equitably defends the rights of every citizen.
The author is a Public Policy Analyst.