Controversy persists as House passes KUHAP bill into law

The House of Representatives has enacted the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) bill in a significant move by the government to overhaul the colonial-era framework on Indonesia's criminal procedures, despite widespread objections.

Beyond debates over the substance of the new KUHAP, the concept of "meaningful participation" has become a point of contention. While the House insists it conducted extensive public consultations in drafting the bill, civil society organizations dispute this and accuse the legislature of misrepresenting the extent of public involvement.

Amid strong criticism from civil society groups and as students protested outside the Senayan Legislative Complex, the House passed the bill into law during a plenary session on Tuesday, marking a milestone in the country's criminal justice system: Deliberations on the KUHAP bill had stretched on since 2012, across multiple administrations and through shifting political landscapes.

Fundamentally, the KUHAP serves as the procedural framework on how law enforcement authorities, from the police to prosecutors, 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 effect on Jan. 2, 2026. The KUHP was enacted in January 2023 with a three-year transition period. Supratman emphasized that the government would use the remaining time to draft around 18 implementing regulations, including three government regulations (PP).

One of the most debated provisions in the new law is Article 74A, which formalizes the "peace agreement" as a form of restorative justice. This mechanism may be initiated between perpetrator and victim(s) as early as the investigation 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 weaponized. 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 restorative justice serves as an alternative means for resolving cases without resorting to formal court processes, which are often lengthy and disadvantageous to all parties. Immigration and Corrections Minister Agus Andrianto further noted that restorative justice prioritized resolution over retribution, and thus helped alleviate 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 disproportionate power and legitimizes arbitrary actions in relation to arrests, detentions and searches.

Commission III chair Habiburokhman dismissed these accusations, 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' subjective assessment. He also clarified that wiretapping, freezing bank accounts and seizing communication devices were not indiscriminate police powers. Instead, such actions required judicial authorization under Article 135(2), while wiretapping would be regulated under a separate law.

Beyond the controversies over substantive elements in the KUHAP, 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 Reformasi KUHAP accused the House of misusing its name to legitimize a flawed process.

Habiburokhman has denied allegations that the drafting process was rushed, saying that deliberations 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 accommodate 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.