The RUU KUHAP refers to the Draft Law on the Criminal Procedure Code in Indonesia, which aims to revise and update the existing Criminal Procedure Code established in 1981. This draft law is intended to modernise the legal framework governing criminal investigations, prosecutions, and trials to better reflect current social realities and align with the newly enacted Criminal Code (KUHP) that is set to come into effect in 2026.
One of the main objectives of the RUU KUHAP is to create a criminal justice system based on the principles of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, ensuring fairness, transparency, and respect for human rights throughout the criminal process. The draft law introduces several significant changes, such as emphasising restorative justice approaches, which focus on repairing harm and reconciling parties rather than solely punishing offenders. It also revises the conditions under which authorities can carry out arrests and detentions, requiring at least two pieces of evidence before such measures can be taken. However, this provision has been criticised for lacking clarity regarding the quality and relevance of the evidence.
The RUU KUHAP also redefines the role of legal advocates and limits free legal assistance strictly to licensed advocates, which has raised concerns because existing laws allow other entities like legal aid organisations and paralegals to provide such support. Furthermore, the draft law introduces dual standards of proof: "clear and convincing evidence" for convicting someone and "sufficient evidence" for procedural actions like arrests and indictments. However, the vague definition of "sufficient evidence" based only on the quantity of evidence rather than its quality has been a point of contention.
Another important aspect of the draft law is the recognition of victims’ rights, defining victims broadly to include those who suffer physical, psychological, or economic harm due to criminal acts, and granting them specific rights during the criminal process.
Despite these reforms, the RUU KUHAP has faced criticism for potentially weakening anti-corruption efforts by removing investigative powers from certain agencies and imposing stricter requirements for detention, which some fear could hinder effective law enforcement. Critics also argue that the draft law was developed too hastily and without adequate coordination with the new Criminal Code, creating inconsistencies between substantive and procedural criminal law.
The Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP) in Indonesia has sparked both support and criticism, reflecting a complex debate about its potential impact on the criminal justice system. On the positive side, proponents argue that the RUU KUHAP introduces important reforms aimed at making the criminal justice process more effective and efficient. For example, it incorporates the regulation of plea bargaining, which can help resolve cases faster and reduce the backlog in courts, thereby easing the burden on the judiciary. The draft also includes progressive elements such as the installation of CCTV in detention facilities, improved rights for vulnerable groups, stronger roles for defence lawyers, better detention conditions, and new provisions on restorative justice, all of which could enhance fairness and transparency in criminal proceedings
However, the RUU KUHAP also faces significant criticism. Civil society groups and legal experts warn that the draft may facilitate abuse of power by law enforcement officials, as it lacks sufficient safeguards against arbitrary arrests, police brutality, and wrongful detentions—issues that remain prevalent in Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Critics highlight that the drafting process was not transparent and had minimal public participation, raising concerns about the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the reform. There are also fears that certain provisions could undermine press freedom by restricting media coverage of court hearings, such as requiring permission from the chief justice to broadcast trials, which could reduce transparency and public oversight
Moreover, some argue that the draft fails to adequately address root problems in the current system, such as judicial accountability and protection of citizens’ rights during investigations and detention. The draft’s unclear regulation of electronic or online hearings and insufficient guidelines on detention conditions have been cited as shortcomings. Human rights advocates caution that if passed without substantial revision, the new KUHAP risks worsening entrenched human rights violations rather than remedying them. They urge the legislature to delay the approval process, improve the draft through broader consultation with stakeholders, and ensure that the law upholds due process and human rights standards.
The main criticisms of the 2025 Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP) in Indonesia centre on its failure to adequately protect human rights and ensure effective judicial oversight. One of the most serious issues is that the draft does not require prior judicial authorisation for arrests, which is a critical safeguard against arbitrary detention. Instead, arrests can be made without a court warrant except in vague and broadly interpretable circumstances, increasing the risk of abuse and human rights violations. Additionally, the draft allows arrests without clear time limits under certain conditions, which further opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.
Critics also highlight that the draft lacks clear and objective standards for coercive measures such as detention, search, and seizure. It expands the grounds for detention from three to nine, including ambiguous reasons like providing false information or obstructing investigations, which can be misused to detain suspects unfairly, for example, simply for exercising their right to legal counsel. The draft does not sufficiently regulate the use of evidence or clarify standards of proof, which undermines fairness in the judicial process.
Another major concern is the inadequate regulation of judicial oversight mechanisms. The draft limits judicial review mainly to pretrial proceedings, leaving victims and suspects without effective means to challenge unreasonable delays or unlawful actions by investigators. Internal complaint mechanisms within investigative bodies are weak and lack guarantees for timely or meaningful follow-up.
The incorporation of provisions from internal police regulations into the draft, which contradict higher laws, risks legitimizing opaque and unaccountable investigative practices. The draft also fails to guarantee the effective exercise of rights by suspects, witnesses, and victims, and does not specify sanctions for violations of these rights during legal proceedings.
Furthermore, the drafting process itself has been criticized for lacking transparency and meaningful public participation, raising doubts about the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the reform. Civil society groups warn that if passed in its current form, the RUU KUHAP could entrench existing problems in Indonesia’s criminal justice system, including human rights abuses, rather than remedy them.
The changes in the new KUHAP draft generally aim to enhance human rights protections by embedding due process principles, strengthening legal assistance, protecting victims, and preventing abuses during investigations. Yet, the effectiveness of these improvements depends on how well the law is implemented and whether further revisions address existing gaps and concerns.
Some critics argue that the draft still has shortcomings and potential risks for human rights. Concerns include unclear standards for evidence and procedural safeguards, risks of arbitrary arrests and detentions, and insufficient mechanisms for judicial oversight and accountability. Some activists and academics warn that without careful revision and broader public participation, the new KUHAP might not fully prevent human rights violations that have historically occurred under the old system.
The draft does not provide sufficient mechanisms or forums for victims, suspects, or the public to challenge or file complaints against unlawful or excessive actions by law enforcement. The existing pretrial institution, which is the only judicial body overseeing some aspects of investigations, is criticised for being passive, limited in capacity, and insufficiently effective in protecting individual rights during the preliminary stages of criminal proceedings.
The absence of an independent, credible oversight institution dedicated to monitoring the entire criminal justice process—including investigators, prosecutors, and judges—raises concerns about accountability and transparency. Internal oversight mechanisms within law enforcement agencies are also considered weak and insufficient to prevent abuses of power.
The new KUHAP draft, in ensuring justice for all, focuses on several significant shortcomings. Critics argue that the draft misunderstands and misapplies the concept of restorative justice by equating it primarily with diversion, treating it as a way to terminate cases outside of court rather than as a comprehensive approach that balances victim recovery with offender accountability. This leads to problematic provisions that grant police investigators broad authority to suspend prosecutions during investigations without sufficient oversight, raising concerns about transparency, potential abuse, and the intimidation of victims to settle cases informally.
Furthermore, the draft fails to establish clear accountability mechanisms for law enforcement officials who neglect or mishandle crime reports and victims’ complaints—an issue especially critical in cases involving sexual violence. Although the draft acknowledges victims’ rights, it does not specify who is responsible for ensuring these rights are upheld, creating a risk that responsibility will be passed around without effective enforcement. Restitution for victims is also inadequately addressed. The draft includes provisions that may leave victims without proper compensation if the offender lacks sufficient assets, undermining the goal of restoring victims’ losses. While the rights of vulnerable groups are recognised, the draft lacks clear operational mechanisms or assigned responsibilities to make these rights meaningful in practice.
In summary, the main criticisms highlight that the new KUHAP draft does not adequately ensure justice for all because it misinterprets restorative justice, lacks transparency and accountability, fails to concretely protect victims and vulnerable groups, inadequately addresses restitution, and risks undermining procedural fairness through hurried reforms and unclear responsibilities. These issues raise serious doubts about the draft’s ability to deliver equitable and effective justice within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
If the new KUHAP draft is passed as it currently stands, it could negatively affect Indonesia’s business and investment climate by increasing legal uncertainty and weakening the protection of rights essential for economic growth. Civil society groups and legal experts warn that the draft grants broader powers to law enforcement agencies without sufficient oversight, which could lead to arbitrary arrests, intimidation, and abuse of power. Such a situation creates an unpredictable legal environment that deters investors who seek stable and transparent rule of law protections before committing capital.
For example, reports highlight how unchecked legal actions and abuses by police—such as coercion or extortion—have already stifled creativity and economic progress in some cases. When businesses or individuals fear arbitrary enforcement or lack clear legal safeguards, they may be reluctant to innovate or invest, slowing down economic development. Moreover, weak legal protections can foster corruption and rent-seeking behaviour, further undermining investor confidence.
Indonesia’s economic outlook in 2025 faces challenges such as global trade tensions and domestic policy fragmentation, making a stable and transparent legal framework even more critical to attract and maintain investment. If the KUHAP revision fails to address these governance and rule-of-law issues adequately, it risks exacerbating existing concerns about Indonesia’s investment climate.
The new KUHAP draft has raised concerns that it could negatively impact foreign investment in Indonesia. Critics argue that certain provisions in the draft are seen as unfavourable to freedom of expression and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, which many foreign investors prioritise as part of their investment criteria. This perception may deter foreign companies that place high importance on human rights and corporate responsibility from investing in Indonesia. Additionally, some foreign governments, such as the United States, view aspects of the new KUHAP as potential threats to human rights protections for their citizens residing or working in Indonesia, further complicating investment relations.
Moreover, the new KUHAP includes provisions that could criminalise corporate entities themselves, not just individuals, which introduces legal uncertainties for businesses. Such risks may make investors more cautious, fearing legal exposure or unpredictable enforcement actions.
While Indonesia continues to pursue ambitious investment targets and reforms to streamline business entry and improve the investment climate, concerns about the new KUHAP’s impact on legal certainty and human rights protections could undermine investor confidence. Given that foreign direct investment (FDI) is crucial for Indonesia’s economic growth, any perception that the legal environment is unstable or restrictive may slow down the inflow of foreign capital.
The new KUHAP draft, if enacted without addressing these concerns, could create legal and reputational risks that discourage foreign investors, thereby affecting Indonesia’s ability to attract and maintain foreign investment crucial for its economic development.
The new KUHAP draft poses significant risks to Indonesia’s business climate by increasing legal uncertainty and weakening protections against abuse of power by law enforcement officials. According to civil society coalitions and legal experts, the draft grants broad discretionary powers to police and prosecutors without adequate oversight, which may lead to arbitrary arrests, intimidation, and corruption. Such conditions create an unpredictable legal environment that deters both domestic and foreign investors who prioritise transparent and stable rule of law protections.
The new KUHAP draft affects legal certainty for businesses in Indonesia in several important ways. Firstly, it introduces clearer provisions on corporate criminal liability, holding corporations accountable for crimes committed by executives, employees, or other individuals acting on behalf of the company. This development aligns with international standards and increases legal clarity by explicitly defining when and how businesses can be held criminally responsible. However, it also raises concerns about the scope of liability and the potential for increased legal risks for companies, especially if enforcement is unpredictable.
Secondly, the new KUHAP incorporates the concept of “living law” (customary law) alongside formal statutory law, which can create some uncertainty about which legal norms apply in specific cases. While this aims to reflect Indonesia’s diverse legal culture and promote legal pluralism, it may complicate legal predictability for businesses unfamiliar with local customary practices.
Thirdly, the new KUHAP replaces the old colonial-era criminal code with a more modern legal framework intended to better accommodate contemporary social and economic realities. This modernisation is expected to improve the overall legal environment, but the transition period until full enforcement in 2026 may cause temporary uncertainty as businesses and legal practitioners adapt to the new rules.
Finally, the draft’s provisions on sanctions for corporations—including fines, license revocations, business suspensions, and even liquidation—introduce significant potential penalties that businesses must carefully manage. The clarity of these sanctions can enhance legal certainty by specifying consequences, but the severity and range of penalties may also increase compliance burdens and legal exposure.
Instances of arbitrary legal actions, such as intimidation of artists or businesses over perceived offences, have already demonstrated how unchecked enforcement can stifle creativity and economic progress. This undermines investor confidence and hampers innovation, which are crucial for economic growth. Furthermore, weak legal protections can foster corruption and rent-seeking behaviour, further discouraging investment.
Given Indonesia’s economic challenges in 2025, including global trade tensions and domestic policy fragmentation, a stable and transparent legal framework is essential to attract and maintain investment. If the KUHAP revision fails to address these governance and human rights issues adequately, it risks worsening the investment climate by creating legal risks and uncertainties.
Passing the KUHAP draft without substantial improvements could harm Indonesia’s business environment by increasing legal risks, enabling law enforcement abuses, and reducing investor confidence, thereby hindering economic growth and development.
