Civil society groups see Indonesia’s new criminal code as a step backward
After decades of debate, Indonesia replaced the Dutch colonial-era criminal code. The government calls it “more humane, modern" for the country’s justice system, with alternatives to prison. Human rights groups and legal experts slam certain anti-democratic elements, like criminalising insulting the president and expanding police powers.
Jakarta (AsiaNews) – The most far-reaching and controversial reform of Indonesia's criminal justice system since independence has officially come into force.
Last Friday, the Dutch colonial era statutes were replaced by a new Criminal Code and a revised Criminal Procedure Code, which, according to the government, usher in a "more humane, modern" form of justice.
But for human rights organisations and some legal experts, the changes represent a step backward in terms of democratic expression, due to elements that risk further restricting room for dissent.
The public debate over the revision of the Criminal Code dates back over 60 years, while the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) took 45 years, with final approval in November 2025.
For the Coordinating Ministry for Legal, Human Rights, Immigration, and Correction, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the new code represents a “historic moment” replacing one that was “repressive, emphasised imprisonment, and paid little attention to restorative justice and human rights protection.”
The government had called for alternatives to prison, such as community service and medical rehabilitation for drug users, which would also reduce prison overcrowding.
For Yusril, the new code “maintains a balance between protecting freedom of expression and the public interest, while ensuring that punishment is proportionate.”
Civil society groups, however, are sceptical. The Coalition for the Reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which brings together human rights associations and groups, slammed the permanence of “anti-democratic” articles that “that erode the principle of the rule of law”.
The new criminal code especially “relaxes criminalisation of citizens and directly threatens civil liberties” while the revised KUHAP “expands the powers of law enforcement, particularly the police, without adequate judicial oversight”.
Among the most controversial points is the reintroduction of the crime of insulting the president, vice president, and state institutions, provisions that the Constitutional Court had scrapped in 2006.
Under the new provisions, insulting the president or other officials can result in up to four and a half years in prison if the message is disseminated physically or digitally and causes public disorder.
“In international human rights law, [punishments] for insulting the president can only be justified if the insult [offends] a particular ethnicity, religion, race or group,” said Daniel Winarta, a lawyer with Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, speaking to the South China Morning Post.
Other provisions have raised strong criticism regarding privacy. The new Criminal Code punishes sexual relations outside of marriage with up to one year in prison and cohabitation between unmarried people with a maximum sentence of six months.
According to Winarta, these provisions are "dangerous" because the state should not be “allowed to intervene in personal matters of citizens”.
Procedurally, concerns centre primarily on the weakening of safeguards against arbitrary arrest.
The KUHAP reform no longer requires arrestees to be presented promptly before a judge and allows the detention warrant to be issued by the prosecutor's office.
Maximum pre-trial detention times can reach up to 60 days in some cases, well beyond the 48 hours required by international standards.
There is no independent judicial authority to verify the necessity of arrest, the coalition says, noting that in many countries, judicial review is a key element in limiting law enforcement abuse.
Political freedoms are also at risk. The new Criminal Code outlaws unannounced protests, the dissemination of information deemed false, and the propaganda of communism and ideologies deemed incompatible with the state doctrine of Pancasila, except in academic settings.
Justice Minister Supratman Andi Agtas rejected accusations that the code lacked transparency, stating that the government engaged universities and civil society organisations in "meaningful" consultation.
Yusril added that the implementation of the new rules is only the “beginning of an ongoing evaluation" and that the government remains “open to input”.
.png)
03/02/2023 18:14
