Jakarta – This is the face of the recently ratified new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP): flawed in its creation process and blighted in its contents. Ignoring public interest, the drafting of this law was marked by conflicting interests among law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the process is reportedly rife with transactional practices.
Amid a wave of rejection from civil society groups and academics, the House of Representatives (DPR) passed the KUHAP into law on Tuesday, November 18, 2025. Drawn up hastily and with a lack of transparency, this law contains many articles with the potential of being used to oppress civil freedoms.
The KUHAP needs at least 15 implementing regulations in the form of government regulations over one year. It is strongly suspected that these implementing regulations will weaken the position of the people.
Driven by various motives, the government and the DPR were only busy arranging work mechanisms to extend the authority of law enforcement institutions. They disregarded the fundamental substance of law formation within the concept of human rights: the interests of the broader public.
From the outset, the KUHAP revision was marked by a turf war over authority within the criminal justice system between the prosecutor's office and the police. The prosecutors wanted the authority to investigate economic and corruption crimes to belong entirely to them. Conversely, the police demanded they handle all criminal investigations, leaving the prosecutors to focus solely on the prosecution process.
Thus, when conflicting interests emerged, the two institutions sought leverage within the DPR. They actively engaged in lobbying, perhaps even through improper means. Every negotiation over interests during the KUHAP deliberation was resolved in "half-chamber" meetings – a phrase with transactional connotation. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Law, which is the government's representative according to regulation, appeared passive and powerless.
Ultimately, the KUHAP grants special authority to the National Police and the Attorney General's Office (AGO) without adequate oversight mechanisms. The police are at the forefront of the investigations because they coordinate all civil servant investigators. In fact, police authority should be limited and their supervision strengthened. The public has long noted the police's poor performance.
The AGO gains the authority to create deferred prosecution agreements when handling corporate cases where the corporation admits guilt and fulfills agreed-upon obligations. As well as this, prosecutors and defendants are allowed to negotiate for lighter sentences, concerning the application of restorative justice. This latter practice opens up opportunities for under-the-table collusion.
During the deliberation of the KUHAP, many substantial matters that should have been studied in depth and involved numerous academics and civil society coalitions were ignored. The excuse that the KUHAP had to be rushed because the Criminal Code would take effect on January 2, 2026, is a baseless argument. There is no provision making the enactment of one law dependent on another.
Articles granting broad authority to law enforcement officers potentially cultivate various malicious practices. Everyone, to give one example, can be "framed," arbitrarily arrested and detained even if their case is still in the preliminary investigation stage. Without court permission, officers can search, seize, and wiretap public property.
The ultimate result of this oppressive practice is the weakening of civil society's position. The strengthened power of the police and prosecutors will suppress public aspirations. The two institutions will become state organs used to enforce the government's wishes for its short-term political and economic interests.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2068253/the-code-that-attacks-civil-societ