Closing the Discrimination Gap: The New Criminal Procedure Code and Equal Rights for People with Disabilities in the Justice System
By: Juana Syahril)*
Eliminating discrimination in the judicial system is a crucial foundation for ensuring equal justice for all citizens. In the context of persons with disabilities, efforts to close the gap in discrimination require concrete steps through inclusive legal reform. The ratification of the new Criminal Procedure Code by the House of Representatives (DPR) is a crucial moment for Indonesia to reinforce this commitment. This new regulation not only updates the criminal procedure law mechanism but also provides stronger recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities as equal legal subjects, particularly in the process of providing evidence and examining witnesses.
Minister of Law Supratman Andi Agtas emphasized this commitment to inclusive reform, stating that the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is one of the most open laws in its drafting process. Through broad public participation, including input from law faculties across Indonesia, the drafting of the KUHAP successfully embraced diverse societal perspectives. Public participation demonstrates that legal development is not solely the domain of the government and legislature, but also an aspirational space that accommodates the interests of vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities.
Furthermore, Supratman emphasized that the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) contains principles of human rights protection, restorative justice, and strengthening legal certainty. These three principles serve as the foundation for reforms to eliminate the potential for arbitrary action that previously existed. In the context of persons with disabilities, this reform brings a breath of fresh air, ensuring that the judicial process no longer marginalizes them, but rather treats them as individuals with equal rights to provide information and receive legal protection.
At the legislative level, the Chairman of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Habiburokhman, stated that persons with disabilities have special needs when providing legal testimony. Therefore, the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) needs to explicitly stipulate that witnesses with disabilities do not have to meet classic evidentiary standards such as seeing, hearing, or directly experiencing an event. Some persons with disabilities actually have unique ways of recognizing or understanding certain conditions. This affirmative regulation ensures that the capacity of witnesses with disabilities is fully recognized and no longer marginalized as was the case under the old regulations.
The daily lives of people with disabilities are often challenging. Social discrimination, underestimation, and the perception that they lack equal abilities remain real challenges. However, history shows that a person’s abilities are not determined by physical condition. Despite their disabilities, many people with disabilities have emerged as accomplished individuals who make significant contributions to the nation. This perspective is crucial for society to be more prepared to accept the role of people with disabilities in the judicial process.
Constitutionally, the guarantee of equality for people with disabilities is affirmed in Article 27 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution. Every citizen has equal standing before the law and government without exception. This principle affirms that people with disabilities have the same legal capacity as other parties in the legal process. They have the right to sue and be sued equally and to receive the same level of legal protection. Therefore, the judicial system is obliged to provide an inclusive, accessible, and discrimination-free environment.
The most significant change in the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) regarding persons with disabilities is the recognition of their testimony as valid and equal evidence. Under the old KUHAP, testimony from persons with disabilities was considered only as an indicative instrument because they were not formally sworn in. In the new KUHAP, this has changed significantly. Testimony from persons with disabilities now has the same legal force as other witnesses as long as their statements are relevant to the case. This recognition closes a discriminatory gap that for years limited the role of persons with disabilities in the evidentiary process.
This change is also supported by the Constitutional Court’s affirmation that testimony need not always be based on what is seen, heard, or experienced directly. As long as it is relevant, such testimony has evidentiary force. Affirmative action provisions, such as those in the Sexual Violence Crimes Law, provide an important foundation for witnesses with disabilities to receive equal treatment while still addressing their specific needs. It also encourages the provision of accessible facilities for women, children, and other vulnerable groups, including psychological counseling, interpretation, and adequate medical services.
However, regulatory harmonization remains a challenge. The lack of uniformity in regulations regarding the protection of people with disabilities in various laws makes cross-institutional coordination crucial. Synergy between the government, the House of Representatives (DPR), the judiciary, and civil society is needed to ensure all regulations are aligned in guaranteeing the rights of people with disabilities from the investigation stage through to trial. With effective harmonization, Indonesia demonstrates its commitment to developing just, humane, and inclusive laws.
Ultimately, the role of the judge is crucial. Judges are not only tasked with hearing testimony but also with ensuring that every witness with a disability can testify without hindrance. Judges must ensure that there is no discrimination, either technically or substantively, in the testimony-taking process. With the new Criminal Procedure Code, Indonesia has taken a major step toward closing the gap in discrimination and ensuring that justice is accessible to all levels of society, including people with disabilities. Despite their limitations, people with disabilities still have the right to equal and comprehensive legal services, just like other citizens.
)* The author is a Bogor student living in Jakarta
