Controversy persists as House passes KUHAP bill into law T The House of Representa- tives has enacted the Crim- inal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) bill in a significant move by the government to overhaul the colonial-era framework on Indo- nesia's criminal procedures, de- spite widespread objections. Beyond debates over the sub- stance of the new KUHAP, the concept of "meaningful participa- tion" has become a point of con- tention. While the House insists it conducted extensive public con- sultations in drafting the bill, civil society organizations dispute this and accuse the legislature of mis- representing the extent of public involvement. Amid strong criticism from civ- il society groups and as students protested outside the Senayan Legislative Complex, the House passed the bill into law during a plenary session on Tuesday, mark- ing a milestone in the country's criminal justice system: Delib- erations on the KUHAP bill had stretched on since 2012, across multiple administrations and through shifting political land- scapes. Fundamentally, the KUHAP serves as the procedural frame- work on how law enforcement au- thorities, from the police to prose- cutors, may exercise their powers. Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas, who led the government's engagement with the bill, said the new KUHAP and the new Criminal Code (KUHP) would both go into Analysis effect on Jan. 2, 2026. The KUHP was enacted in January 2023 with Jakarta a three-year transition period. Su- By Tenggara Strategics pratman emphasized that the gov- emment would use the remaining time to draft around 18 imple- menting regulations, including three government regulations (PP). One of the most debated pro- visions in the new law is Article 74A, which formalizes the "peace agreement" as a form of restor- ative justice. This mechanism may be initiated between perpetrator and victim(s) as early as the inves- tigation stage. Civil society groups warn that this provision opens the door to coercion and extortion. Habiburokhman, who chairs House Commission III overseeing law enforcement, rejected claims that the mechanism could be wea- ponized. He explained that under articles 74A and 79, while a peace agreement could be established during the investigation phase even before the criminal act was formally determined, the process was tightly regulated and left no room for individuals to exploit it for financial gain. The government argues that re- storative justice serves as an alter- native means for resolving cases without resorting to formal court processes, which are often lengthy and disadvantageous to all par- ties. Immigration and Correction- sal Services Minister Agus Andri- anto further noted that restorative justice prioritized resolution over retribution, and thus helped al- leviate burdening the state with prison overcrowding. Civil society groups have also pointed to significant concerns related to articles 7 and 8, which place all civil servant investigators (PPNS) under the coordination of the National Police. Critics say this structure grants the police dispro- portionate power and legitimizes arbitrary actions in relation to ar- rests, detentions and searches. Commission III chair Habi- burokhman dismissed these ac- cusations, arguing that the new provisions introduced stricter safeguards. For example, they now required "two objective pieces of evidence" (preliminary evidence) before an arrest could be made, he said, whereas previous laws relied more heavily on officers' subjec- tive assessment. He also clarified that wiretapping, freezing bank accounts and seizing communica- tion devices were not indiscrimi- nate police powers. Instead, such actions required judicial authori- zation under Article 135(2), while wiretapping would be regulated under a separate law. Beyond the controversies over substantive elements in the KU- HAP, its drafting process drew sharp criticism. Civil society groups alleged that lawmakers failed to uphold the principle of "meaningful participation" and reported 11 members of the bill's working committee to the House Ethics Council. Meanwhile, the civil society coalition Reforma- si KUHAP accused the House of misusing its name to legitimize a flawed process. Habiburokhman has denied al- legations that the drafting process was rushed, saying that delibera- tions had been ongoing for nearly a year since Nov. 6, 2024. He also claimed that 99.9 percent of the revisions to the bill was based on public input. Law minister Supratman has said that opposition is natural, and that lawmakers cannot ac- commodate every input put forth during the legislative process. In separate remarks, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chief Setyo Budiyanto said the new KUHAP would not affect the antigraft body's operations in any significant way. What we've heard Legislators familiar with the ongoing deliberations regarding the KUHAP bill have indicated that its ratification is being ag- gressively accelerated to meet a year-end deadline. Sources note that the primary urgency behind this fast-tracked schedule is the strategic necessity to synchronize the procedural law with the sub- stantive new KUHP, which is slat- ed to come into force in January 2026. A progovernment lawmaker confirmed this objective, stating that both the executive and legis- lative branches are unified in their desire for the two regulations to take effect in parallel to ensure a cohesive legal transition. Significant reforms have been integrated into the draft to ad- dress public concerns regarding law enforcement conduct. The re- vised bill accommodates crucial inputs, including provisions that mandate rigorous oversight for police examination procedures. Furthermore, the legislation in- troduces specific articles impos- ing strict penalties on police of- ficers found guilty of committing torture during investigations, sig- naling a robust commitment to human rights and accountability within the justice system. A member of President Prabo- wo Subianto's cabinet affirmed the readiness of the bill, noting that the drafting process has been inclusive and comprehensive. The official stated that all substantive proposals and critical inputs from various stakeholders have been successfully incorporated into the final draft. To ensure the practical applica- tion of the new code, the govern- ment is preparing a supporting regulatory framework to follow law
Abstract
-