Indonesia Passes Overhauled Criminal Procedure Code, Raises Concerns

Indonesia has officially passed its new Criminal Procedure Code, known as KUHAP, after more than four decades of discussion and debate. This significant overhaul aims to modernize the nation’s criminal justice system, addressing the urgent need for reforms as investigations increasingly rely on digital evidence and forensic technology. While the new KUHAP represents a crucial step forward, it has also prompted serious concerns regarding the manner in which it was enacted.

Critics, including academics, civil society groups, and legal experts, have raised alarms over the rapid legislative process. Many believe that the deliberations were conducted hastily and lacked sufficient transparency. The urgency from the DPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) to pass this legislation before the end of the current legislative term raises questions about the motivations behind the accelerated timeline.

Political and Institutional Pressures Drive Rapid Change

One primary factor behind this urgency is political. Major legislative reforms often proceed quickly as the end of a legislative term approaches. If the KUHAP had not been passed this year, the DPR would likely have had to restart the discussion from scratch, prolonging a process that has already spanned nearly a decade. Completing this overhaul before the year’s end provides a significant legislative legacy for current members, incentivizing speed over thorough public engagement.

In addition to political motivations, there is substantial institutional pressure. Police, prosecutors, and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights have long advocated for a new procedural code that aligns with contemporary investigative needs. The previous KUHAP, established in 1981, failed to account for advancements in digital forensics, data access, and cross-border cooperation. Delays in reforming the procedural code have left law enforcement with legal uncertainties that hinder effective crime investigations.

While the DPR did conduct public consultations through parliamentary and public hearings, the effectiveness of these sessions has been contested. Many participants have expressed that their contributions were not adequately reflected in the final draft, suggesting that procedural participation failed to translate into substantive change. Given the significance of the new KUHAP for over 280 million Indonesians, the criteria for public input should have been considerably higher.

New Reforms and Ongoing Concerns

Despite the concerns surrounding its passage, the new KUHAP introduces several positive reforms. It formally recognizes electronic evidence, regulates digital searches, and requires judicial warrants for certain investigative actions. Additionally, it strengthens victims’ rights and incorporates restorative justice under court supervision.

Nevertheless, the provisions related to searches and seizures carry significant risks. While permission from the District Court is required, exceptions can be made in “urgent circumstances,” a phrase that remains broadly defined and open to interpretation. This could potentially lead to arbitrary actions by investigators, raising fears about the expansion of coercive powers that may infringe on citizens’ rights.

The new code also lays the groundwork for digital forensics and electronic surveillance, but it lacks clear protocols on data management and oversight. Without stringent safeguards, the tools designed to enhance investigations could become instruments of overreach, failing to protect the privacy rights of individuals as stipulated in the Data Protection Law.

Indonesia’s approach stands in contrast to countries that have effectively integrated technology into their legal frameworks. For instance, nations like the United States and China have established comprehensive procedural regulations around the use of artificial intelligence and digital systems in judicial processes. China aims to fully integrate AI into its judicial framework by 2030, supported by detailed procedural regulations.

As Indonesia moves forward with implementing the new KUHAP, the necessity for secondary regulations and institutional training cannot be overstated. These measures will play a crucial role in determining whether the law enhances justice or perpetuates existing vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, the success of the KUHAP will hinge on its implementation. Reform must strike a balance between modern investigative demands and enforceable protections for citizens’ rights. While modernization is essential, the pursuit of justice requires not only efficiency but also transparency, accountability, and robust safeguards grounded in the rule of law.

The implications of the new KUHAP extend beyond mere procedural changes; they raise fundamental questions about the rights and liberties of Indonesians in a rapidly evolving legal landscape. Legal experts such as Randy Taufik, a legal counsel and Oxford alumni, and Ahmad Novindri Aji Sukma, a regulatory compliance lawyer and PhD researcher based in London, emphasize the importance of ongoing scrutiny and refinement of the law to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of delivering justice effectively and fairly.