Indonesia’s New Criminal Procedure Code: A Landmark Shift in Justice

Indonesia has enacted its long-awaited Criminal Procedure Code, known as the KUHAP, after more than four decades of deliberation. This significant reform aims to modernize the country’s criminal justice system, which has increasingly been challenged by the rise of digital evidence and the need for cross-border cooperation. While the new code introduces crucial updates, it also raises serious concerns regarding transparency and the potential for overreach by law enforcement.

The legislative process surrounding the KUHAP has faced criticism for being rushed. Many academics, civil society groups, and legal practitioners have voiced concerns that the discussions lacked adequate transparency. Questions have arisen about the urgency displayed by the House of Representatives (DPR) in passing the KUHAP. As one of Indonesia’s largest legal reforms, its swift enactment was essential to avoid restarting a decade-long discussion that could delay modernization further.

Political and Institutional Pressures

Political motivations often drive the rapid passage of major legislation, particularly as the DPR approaches the end of its term. The KUHAP reform is seen as a legislative legacy that lawmakers were eager to secure before the year concluded. Institutional pressures from law enforcement agencies, including the police and prosecutors, have also played a significant role. These entities have long demanded a new procedural code that addresses contemporary investigative needs, particularly regarding digital forensics and data access.

While the DPR did conduct public consultations through parliamentary hearings, many critics argue that the input gathered did not significantly influence the final legislation. This phenomenon reflects a broader issue in legislative processes where participation exists on paper, but substantive engagement is lacking. For a law affecting over 280 million Indonesians, the expectations for public input should be considerably higher.

Positive Reforms and Potential Risks

The new KUHAP introduces several essential reforms, such as the formal recognition of electronic evidence, enhanced protections for victims, and the incorporation of restorative justice principles under judicial supervision. Despite these advancements, the provision regarding searches and seizures raises concerns. While the law mandates judicial warrants for many actions, exceptions can be made under “urgent circumstances,” a term that remains broadly defined and subject to subjective interpretation by investigators.

Such provisions could lead to arbitrary actions, where what law enforcement views as necessary may be perceived by citizens as an expansion of coercive power. Without robust safeguards in place, new investigative tools could easily become instruments of overreach. Moreover, the synchronization of data management and storage is vital to prevent privacy violations, especially given the stipulations of the Personal Data Protection Law.

Despite the modernization efforts, the KUHAP appears to expand state authority more swiftly than it strengthens individual protections. Although warrants are required for many intrusive actions, the law allows for exceptions that are not as tightly regulated as international norms. This raises concerns about the balance between effective law enforcement and the safeguarding of civil liberties.

The chapter on the Information Technology-Based Justice System presents a forward-looking framework, yet it lacks comprehensive regulations addressing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and technological limitations. In contrast, countries such as the United States and China have integrated AI into their judicial frameworks, with specific procedural regulations guiding its use.

Implementation and Future Outlook

The successful implementation of the KUHAP will depend on subsequent regulations, institutional training, and judicial interpretation. While the law acknowledges rights, it does not fully adopt explicit remedies for procedural violations, leaving enforcement inconsistent. Access to legal counsel and protections for whistleblowers remain limited, raising questions about the efficacy of the reforms.

Restorative justice, while a promising initiative, requires well-defined boundaries and skilled facilitators to prevent misuse. The impact of the KUHAP will ultimately rely on how these new provisions are interpreted and enforced.

While modernization is necessary, it should not come at the expense of transparency, accountability, and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. As Indonesia embarks on this significant legal transformation, the balance between efficient justice and the protection of citizens’ rights will be critical for the future of the country’s legal landscape.

Randy Taufik, a legal counsel and Oxford alumnus specializing in corporate and tech law, and Ahmad Novindri Aji Sukma, a regulatory compliance lawyer based in London and PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, emphasize the need for reforms that prioritize the rights of individuals alongside modern investigative capabilities.