ALSA 2025 meeting

This paper examines how Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), enacted in 1981, has evolved into a legal instrument that centralises coercive power in the hands of the police, undermining democratic accountability and human rights protections. Instead of serving as a neutral framework for due process, KUHAP facilitates unchecked arrests, prolonged detentions, and investigatory dominance by the police. Prosecutors are largely marginalised, treated not as dominus litis but as passive intermediaries, which further erodes institutional checks and balances. Using a socio-legal research approach, this study combines doctrinal analysis with fieldwork, including interviews with victims, defence lawyers, prosecutors, and civil society advocates, to explore how procedural law operates in practice. It also incorporates elements of participatory action research, particularly through collaboration with legal aid institutions and academic networks that advocate for reform. The author is actively involved in the ongoing KUHAP reform drafting process, allowing for direct insight into the legal-political dynamics shaping procedural change and the contestation among institutional actors. The paper situates KUHAP within the broader context of Indonesia’s democratic backsliding, highlighting how increasing militarisation and the consolidation of police authority reflect a shift toward authoritarian legal governance. Despite the 1945 Constitution’s guarantees of legal certainty (Article 28D) and protection from arbitrary arrest (Article 28G), current procedures fail to effectively enforce these rights. The new Criminal Code (KUHP 2023) introduces progressive material norms, but without corresponding procedural reform, these remain symbolic. Initial findings suggest that KUHAP primarily serves to legitimise state power rather than safeguard individual rights. Reform proposals, such as judicial oversight of arrest (hakim komisaris), enhanced prosecutorial control, exclusion of torture-based evidence, and digital transparency, face institutional resistance. Nonetheless, reform coalitions continue to push for alignment with constitutional and human rights standards.