Criminal Procedure Code Bill, A New Era of Criminal Law Enforcement

1. Introduction

The current Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure has been in force for more than forty years. According to the General Elucidation of the Draft Law on the Criminal Procedure Code (“Bill”), this legislation is inadequate for responding to legal developments and the growing complexity of criminal offenses today. Therefore, reforming criminal procedure law has become a national priority to establish a more comprehensive, adaptive, and responsive legal foundation for modern law enforcement.

On 18 November 2025, the House of Representatives (“DPR”) passed the Bill into law, thereby revoking and replacing Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (“Old KUHAP”). The Bill awaits promulgation by the President and will take effect on 2 January 2026. The Bill strengthens the foundation of criminal law enforcement in Indonesia in a more comprehensive manner. According to its General Elucidation, the Bill aims to balance the state’s interest in maintaining public order (the crime control model) with the obligation to protect human rights (the due process model). In this context, suspects and defendants are positioned as subjects of the law with fundamental rights that must be respected rather than as mere objects of examination.

 

2. Fundamental Principles

2.1 Application of the Active Judge Principle

Article 4 of the Bill adopts the principle of the active judge. Judges are obligated to seek the material truth, allowing them to question defendants, witnesses, and experts in order to uncover it. Under this Bill, judges play a larger role in actively discovering facts and carefully assessing evidence, rather than merely presiding over the proceedings. This expanded role includes new authorities, such as facilitating restorative justice (Article 204 (5) & (6) of the Bill) and examining the validity of guilty pleas (plea bargaining) (Article 234 (3) & (4)), to ensure  legal certainty, justice, and the protection of human rights.

2.2 Principle of Expeditious, Simple, and Low-Cost Proceedings

The Bill imposes stricter limits on detention periods to ensure legal certainty and prevent the prolonged handling of cases. Articles 102 through 106 establish strict time limits for detention at each stage of the investigation process. If these deadlines are exceeded and  the case file is not completed, the suspect must be released by operation of law. This provision encourages law enforcement authorities to work more efficiently and professionally.

2.3 Principle of Restorative Justice in the Judicial System

The Bill incorporates the principle of Restorative Justice into case resolution, shifting the focus from a punishment to restoration (Article 1, point 21 of the Bill). Case handling prioritizes victim restitution and repairing  social relations, involving the active participation of offenders and victims.

2.4 Regulation of Coercive Measures through the Principle of Due Process of Law

The Bill expands the definition of coercive measures to include not only physical deprivation of liberty, but also interventions involving assets and privacy. According to Article 89, coercive measures include the designation of a suspect, arrest, detention, search, seizure, interception, examination of documents, blocking, and travel bans.

2.4.1 Designation of a Suspect (Beginning of Due Process)

Under Article 90 (1) of the Bill, a suspect must be designated based on at least two pieces of evidence. This designation must be stated in writing and communicated to the suspect within one day thereafter (Article 90 (2)). Article 91 prohibits investigators from engaging in any conduct that creates a presumption of guilt when designating a suspect.

2.4.2 Judicial Authorization (Judicial Scrutiny) for Searches and Seizures

Under the Bill, investigators can no longer conduct searches and seizures without strict judicial control. For searches, Article 113 (1) requires investigators to obtain prior authorization from the chief judge of the district court before conducting a search. Although Article 113 (4) provides exceptions for “urgent circumstances” (e.g., flagrante delicto or inaccessible locations) allowing searches without prior approval. However, investigators must still request approval from the chief district judge within 48 hours after the search, as stipulated in Article 113 (6). If approval is denied, then according to Article 113 (9), the results of the search cannot be used as evidence.

For seizures, Article 119 (1) requires investigators to obtain prior authorization from the chief district judge, who must issue a determination within two days. In urgent circumstances, Article 120 (1) permits the seizure of movable objects without prior authorization; however, investigators must request approval within five working days. If authorization or approval is denied, Article 121 (3) states that the seized items cannot be used as evidence and must be returned immediately.

2.4.3 Arrest and Detention

The Bill strictly regulates deprivation of liberty to prevent arbitrariness. The arrest of a person suspected of committing a criminal offense must be based on at least two pieces of evidence, as stipulated in Article 94. The arrest process must be accompanied by a written arrest warrant, which must be presented to the suspect (Article 95 (1) & (2)). A copy of the warrant must be given to the suspect’s family no later than one day after the arrest (Article 95 (3)). The time limit for arrest is capped at 24 hours (Article 96).

Detention may only be imposed for offenses punishable by five years’ imprisonment or more, or for certain specific offenses listed in Article 100 (1) & (2). Investigators may detain a suspect for up to 20 days and the Public Prosecutor may extend this period for up to 40 days (Article 102 (1) & (2)). According to Article 102 (3) if the period expires, the investigator must release the suspect. Further extensions are permitted only for severe physical/mental impairment or offenses punishable by nine years or more, and require authorization from the chief district judge (Article 107 (1)).

2.4.4 Blocking and Interception

The Bill introduces new forms of coercive measures relevant to modern crime, such as asset blocking and interception, while maintaining due process safeguards. Article 140 requires the blocking of assets, financial transactions, or electronic accounts. According to Article 140 (2), blocking must be authorized by the chief district judge. In urgent situations involving the risk of asset transfer, Articles 140 (7) & (9) allow for blocking without prior authorization. However, investigators must request approval within 48 hours. If approval is denied, Article 140 (12) requires that the block be lifted within three working days.

Interception is regulated under Article 136, which authorizes investigators to conduct interception for investigative purposes. However, the Bill does not provide technical details. Instead mandates, through Article 136 (2), that interception procedures shall be regulated by a separate dedicated law.

2.4.5 Pretrial Review

The Bill strengthens judicial oversight of coercive measures by expanding Pretrial Review. According to Article 158, the district court has the authority to examine and decide on the legality of coercive measures, including arrest, detention, search, seizure, and designation of suspects. Pretrial decisions carry significant consequences. According to Article 163 (3) (a), if designation of a suspect is declared unlawful, the investigator must release the suspect. Additionally, Article 163 (3) (d) establishes an exclusionary rule, stipulating that any evidence obtained from an unlawful search, seizure, interception, or document examination cannot be used in court.

 

3. New Mechanisms in Case Resolution

3.1 Restorative Justice

The Bill allows for the resolution of criminal cases outside of the formal judicial process. According to Article 79, resolutions may include reconciliation, compensation, or restoration of damages. However, Article 80 limits the application of this mechanism to criminal offenses carrying a maximum penalty of five years and committed by first-time offenders only. However, Article 82 excludes serious offenses such as terrorism, corruption, and sexual violence from this mechanism.

3.2 Plea Bargaining

The Bill introduces the concept of Plea Bargaining to increase judicial efficiency. According to Article 1, point 16, a plea bargain is defined as a legal mechanism in which a defendant voluntarily admits guilt and cooperates in the examination, as well as provides supporting evidence in exchange for a reduced sentence. According to Article 78, defendants who voluntarily admit to an offense are entitled to prosecutorial leniency. If the judge approves the admission, the imposed sentence may not exceed two-thirds of the maximum penalty, as stipulated in Article 234.

3.3 Deferred Prosecution Agreement for Corporations

A Deferred Prosecution Agreement is a mechanism that grants the Public Prosecutor authority to postpone the prosecution of a corporate defendant, as defined in Article 1, point 17 and Article 328 (2). According to Article 328 (1), this mechanism is intended to ensure legal compliance, restore losses resulting from the criminal offense, and increase efficiency within the criminal justice system. According to Article 328 (3), the process may be initiated by an application submitted by the Suspect, Defendant, or Advocate to the Public Prosecutor before the case is transferred to the court.

The Public Prosecutor has the authority to approve or reject the application based on considerations of justice, the interests of the victim, and the defendant’s compliance with regulations (Article 328 (4)). If the application is approved, the Prosecutor must notify the court that the agreement process will proceed. This notification must be recorded in the official minutes pursuant to Article 328 (5). The agreement must be submitted to the court for a judicial review of its feasibility and validity no later than seven days after being signed (Article 328 (6) & (7)).

The judge validates the agreement by assessing the elements listed in Article 328 (8), namely compliance with statutory requirements, proportionality of sanctions or obligations, the defendant’s ability to fulfill the obligations, and the agreement’s impact on victims, society, the environment, the national economy, and the criminal justice system. If the agreement is approved, the judge issues a judicial determination and suspends the proceedings (Article 328 (10)). If the agreement is rejected, the case proceeds to trial under regular procedures (Article 328 (11)).

During the deferral period, the corporation must fulfill all obligations in the agreement as outlined in Article 328 (12), including paying compensation or restitution, implementing  compliance programs or corporate governance reforms, providing mandatory reports and cooperating with law enforcement, or taking other corrective measures. If the corporation fulfills all of these obligations within the prescribed period, the case may be terminated without further prosecution through a court determination (Article 328 (13)). Conversely, if the corporation fails to comply, Article 328 (15) authorizes the Prosecutor to resume prosecution without additional approval.

3.4 Judicial Pardon

The Bill grants judges the authority to apply the principle of Judicial Pardon. According to Article 1, point 19, a judicial pardon is a judicial declaration, delivered during an open court hearing. This declaration states that although the defendant has been proven guilty, no penalty or measure will be imposed due to the minor nature of the act, the defendant’s personal circumstances, or the situation before, during and after the offense. This declaration is made with due regard to justice and humanity. According to Article 246, a judge may find the defendant guilty but impose no punishment if the act is minor, the defendant’s personal situation is taken into account, and/or the circumstances before and after the offense are considered.

 

4. Modernization of Evidence and Proof

4.1 Types of Evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code Bill

Article 184 of the Old KUHAP recognized only five types of evidence: witness testimony, expert testimony, documents, indications, and defendant testimony. The Bill expands upon  this list. According to Article 235, admissible evidence consists of the following:

1. witness testimony,
2. expert testimony,
3. documents,
4. defendant testimony,
5. physical evidence,
6. electronic evidence,
7. judicial observation, and
8. any other object that may be used for evidentiary purposes at trial, provided it is obtained lawfully.

4.2 Status of Electronic Evidence

In response to advancements in information technology, electronic evidence such as digital recordings, videos, or electronic mail as explicitly recognized as admissible. Article 235 (1) (f) jo. Article 242 recognizes electronic evidence as a valid and independent form of evidence. According to Article 242, electronic evidence includes electronic information, electronic documents, and/or electronic systems related to a criminal offense.

Electronic information refers to processed electronic data that carries a specific meaning under legislation (Article 1, point 38). An electronic document is electronic information that is created, transmitted, sent, received, stored, viewed, displayed, and/or heard through computers or electronic systems and that holds meaning or significance under legislation (Article 1, point 39).

4.3 Shift from “Indications” to “Judicial Observation”

The concept of “indications,” criticized as ambiguous in the old KUHAP’s, is removed. Article 235 (1) (g) introduces the concept of “judicial observation,” which is based on the judge’s observations of facts that arise during the trial. These facts include the defendant’s behavior and the consistency of the evidence.

4.4 Expanded Definition of Witness

In line with Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010, Article 1, point 47 of the Bill, the definition of a Witness has been expanded. A witness is now defined as anyone who possesses information and/or controls data relevant to the case, not just a person who sees, hears, or directly experiences an offense.

4.5 Electronic Hearings (Telepresence)

According to Article 236 (2), hearings may be conducted online through audiovisual communication tools to overcome challenges to physical attendance. This provision provides  flexibility in evidentiary processes when a witness is unable to appear for valid reasons. Additionally, Article 204 (2) authorizes judges to order electronic hearings under specific conditions.

4.6 Recording of Examinations (Transparency)

According to Article 30 (1), examinations of suspects must be recorded using surveillance cameras during questioning to prevent torture or intimidation during the investigative process. These recordings serve as a control mechanism and as evidence to verify that statements were given freely and voluntarily. According to Article 32 (2), Advocates have the right to object if investigators engage in intimidation during an examination. Article 142 (q) guarantees suspects the right to be free from torture and intimidation.

 

5. Comparative Analysis: Criminal Procedure Code Bill, Constitutional Court Decisions, and Old KUHAP

6. Regulation of Subjects and Rights in the Judicial System

6.1 Rights of Suspects and Defendants

A suspect has the right to remain silent, and this silence cannot be considered as an admission of guilt (Article 142 (e)). Access to legal assistance is guaranteed from the earliest stage of examination to ensure effective legal representation.

Article 142 sets out the rights of suspects and defendants as follows:

1. to have the examination conducted promptly;
2. to choose, contact, and receive assistance from an advocate during every examination;
3. to be clearly informed, in a language he/she understands, of the allegations or charges;
4. to be informed of their rights;
5. to give or refuse to give statements related to the allegations or charges;
6. to receive an interpreter or translator at any time;
7. to obtain legal services and/or legal aid;
8. for foreign suspects or defendants: the right to contact, communicate with, and receive visits from their consular representatives;
9. to designate a representative state to be contacted;
10. to contact, communicate with, and receive visits from a doctor for health examinations;
11. to contact, communicate with, and receive visits from clergy;
12. to contact, communicate with, and receive visits from family, relatives, or others, either directly or through an advocate;
13. to send and receive letters from/to advocates and family;
14. to submit an application for restorative justice;
15. to present and request witnesses and/or individuals with special expertise;
16. to file a claim for compensation and rehabilitation; and/or
17. to be free from torture, intimidation, inhumane or degrading treatment throughout the legal process.

6.2 Victim Rights, Victim Protection, and the Victim Trust Fund

Article 144 regulates the rights of victims as follows:

1. not to be held civilly or criminally liable for testimony, reports, or complaints given or to be given, unless such statements are made in bad faith;
2. to choose, contact, and receive assistance from an advocate during every examination;
3. to give testimony without pressure;
4. to receive an interpreter or translator;
5. to be free from entrapment-style questioning;
6. to receive information regarding case developments;
7. to receive information regarding court decisions;
8. to receive information when the convicted person is released;
9. to obtain protection for their personal safety, family, and property, and to be free from threats related to their testimony;
10. to have their identity kept confidential;
11. to receive reimbursement for transportation costs during case handling;
12. to request restitution through prosecution;
13. to implement a restorative justice mechanism;
14. to participate in choosing the form of protection and security support;
15. to receive medical assistance, as well as psychosocial and psychological rehabilitation;
16. to receive legal advice;
17. to be accompanied by support personnel during every examination;
18. to obtain temporary residence;
19. to receive temporary financial assistance until protection ends;
20. to receive reimbursement for transportation costs incurred during service fulfillment;
21. to receive a new identity;
22. to obtain restitution through a court determination after the decision becomes final;
23. to obtain new residence;
24. to deliver written or oral victim impact statements; and/or
25. to be free from torture, intimidation, or degrading treatment throughout the legal process.

Article 187 introduces a major reform by establishing a Victim Trust Fund. The Fund is managed by a special body that pays Compensation, Rehabilitation, Restitution, and Compensation Awards. Funding sources include the national budget (APBN), investment returns, revenue-sharing from non-tax revenues (PNBP), proceeds from seized assets, and other lawful non-binding sources. The State manages the Fund to guarantee compensation payment when perpetrators lack financial capacity.

6.3 Regulation for Vulnerable Groups (Persons with Disabilities, Women, Children, and the Elderly)

The Bill provides special protections for these groups:

1. Persons with Disabilities (Article 145): must be provided with assistance and accessible facilities.
2. Women (Article 147): guaranteed protection from intimidation and degrading examinations.
3. Elderly (Article 148): defendants aged 75 or older should, based on humanitarian considerations, not to be sentenced to imprisonment.

6.4 Corporate Criminal Liability (Chapter XVIII)

According to the Bill, criminal liability extends to corporations and their responsible persons (Article 326 (1)). Article 326 (2) broadly defines responsible persons, including functional officers, command givers, controllers, and beneficial owners. Furthermore, Article 332  permits the joint prosecution of both the corporation and its responsible persons. 

During the investigation, the corporation is represented by a responsible person, who must respond to a summons. If the corporation refuses to attend or fails to appoint a representative, investigators may designate a representative and issue a compulsory attendance order under Article 327 (4). Article 327 (5) applies coercive measures to responsible persons mutatis mutandis. Furthermore, Article 327 (6) applies restorative justice to corporations if the offense is their first offense and they provide restitution and carry out corrective measures.

Additionally, corporate status changes do not eliminate criminal liability. According to Article 330, liability remains despite corporate actions such as mergers, consolidations, splits, or dissolution. If fined at the execution stage, Article 335 requires corporations to pay within one month of the final decision, with an extension of one month allowed once. If the fine remains unpaid, the corporation’s assets may be seized and auctioned. Article 337 provides similar provisions for responsible persons. Article 339 regulates confiscation of assets and crime proceeds. Article 340 regulates compensation/restitution, nonpayment results in the  seizure and auction of assets.

6.5 Strengthening the Role of Advocates

According to Article 149 (1) of the  Bill, advocates are considered law enforcers who perform legal services’ duties and functions in accordance with professional ethics. According to Article 149 (2), advocates cannot be held civilly or criminally liable when performing their professional duties in good faith for the benefit of their client’s defense. Additionally, Article 32 (2) grants advocates the right to raise objections if an investigator engages in intimidation or asks entrapment questions. Article 78 (3) requires that an advocate accompany a defendant who pleads guilty.

Furthermore, Article 150 letter b guarantees the right to contact and visit clients at any time during the examination process. According to Article 150 letter e, advocates have the right to request a copy of the examination minutes immediately after the examination is completed. Article 150 letter f guarantees the right to send and receive letters from a suspect or defendant. Next, Article 150 letter h ensures that advocates are free to express opinions or make statements during hearings for the purpose of defense. Finally, Article 150 letter j  regulates the advocate’s right to request documents and evidence relevant to assisting the defense.

 

7. Institutions and Execution of Judgments

7.1 Coordination Between Investigators and Public Prosecutors

Article 58 requires coordination between investigators and prosecutors from the beginning of the investigation to ensure an integrated criminal justice system. The Public Prosecutor plays a stronger dominus litis role to ensure that there is sufficient evidence before the case is transferred to the court.

7.2 Preliminary Examination Judge

Oversight of coercive measures is conducted through an expanded Pretrial Review. The Pretrial Judge examines the legality of arrest, detention, and suspect designation to safeguard human rights during the pre-adjudication phase.

7.3 Execution of Judgments and Supervision

After a criminal judgment is issued, execution is strictly supervised. According to Article 353,   Supervisory and Observing Judges (Wasmat) must be present in every district court. These judges ensure that the execution of sentences in correctional institutions aligns with sentencing objectives and inmate rehabilitation principles.

 

8. Transitional Provisions

Article 361 regulates the handling of cases during the transition from the former Criminal Procedure Code to the Bill to ensure legal certainty. Law enforcement officials completing  ongoing cases at the Investigation or Prosecution stages shall continue to apply the provisions of the former Criminal Procedure Code. If a criminal act occurred before the Bill  was enacted but the legal process has not yet begun, law enforcement officials shall conduct the Investigation or Prosecution in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

Additionally, if a case has already been submitted to the court and its examination process has begun, the courts shall continue to examine, try, and decide cases under the provisions of the former Criminal Procedure Code. However, for the Judicial Review process (Peninjauan Kembali/PK), the courts shall apply the provisions of the Bill. If a criminal case has been submitted to the court but the examination of the Defendant has not yet begun, the court shall examine, try, and decide the case pursuant to the provisions of the Bill.

 

9. Closing

The Bill is designed to replace the outdated KUHAP, which is  no longer considered aligned with contemporary legal and judicial needs. The reform shifts the approach to handling criminal cases by incorporating restorative and victim-oriented justice mechanisms, as well as new procedures such as the Guilty Plea Route and Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The goal is to strike a balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding individual rights during judicial proceedings. 

In addition to these fundamental changes, the Bill incorporates several Constitutional Court decisions to provide legal certainty. The Bill also reflects the modernization by explicitly regulating electronic evidence, establishing a Victim Trust Fund, and providing protections for vulnerable groups. The Bill also strengthens judicial oversight of sentence execution by ensuring the presence of Supervisory and Observing Judges at each district court.

 

 

REFERENCES

1. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.
2. Draft Law on the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010 (Expansion of Witness Definition).
4. Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-IX/2011 (Appeal of Pretrial Decisions).
5. Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 (Multiple Judicial Reviews).
6. Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 (Preliminary Evidence and Pretrial Objects).
7. Constitutional Court Decision No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015 (Expiry of Pretrial Proceedings).
8. Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 (Time Limit for SPDP).
9. Constitutional Court Decision No. 33/PUU-XIV/2016 (Subjects Entitled to File Judicial Review).
10. Constitutional Court Decision No. 103/PUU-XIV/2016 (Format of Criminal Judgment Documents).