In the days after the demo, the police immediately took action. On August 30, 2025,East Jakarta Metro Policearrested nine people suspected of being involved in looting the house of DPR member Uya Kuya. This arrest was based on video recordings of the masses and dozens of household appliances of the victims found at the location. Likewise, the South Tangerang Police together with the Ditreskrimum Polda Metro Jaya secured several perpetrators of the looting of Menkeu Sri Mulyani's house in Bintaro. Until this article was written, the case was reported to have progressed to the investigation stage. All of these incidents were reported by the media as general crimes. In this case, there is no difference in the status of the victims; both officials and ordinary citizens will still be processed legally.

Justice at the Green Table: Judge's Considerations

Although evidence indicates involvement in looting, the practice of criminal justice in Indonesia does not automatically impose the maximum penalty. The fundamental principle of criminal law, namely the principle of no crime without fault, is reflected inArticle 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Codewhich affirms that no act can be punished except based on statutory provisions. This provision requires proven fault before a verdict is handed down. In addition,Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP)requires judges to include considerations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the verdict. If these considerations are ignored, the decision can be declared null and void. Therefore, judges not only look at the juridical aspects, but also consider humanitarian factors and the subjective conditions of the defendant, such as remorse, family dependents, or social track record. Thus, the final verdict is expected to reflect proportional justice, not merely revenge.

Conclusion: Aspiration is Not Justification for Crime

In the view of Indonesian criminal law, looting without exception is a serious crime. Even though the masses are motivated by political criticism, such as disappointment with the policies of officials, the act of forcibly taking other people's property cannot be justified and is threatened with imprisonment. There is no legal justification for looting just because the victim is an official or the masses feel "it's the people's money". A distinction needs to be made between conveying criticism, even in harsh language, and taking the law into one's own hands. Criminal law expert at Trisakti University, Abdul Fickar Hadjar, stated that criticism of officials in the public sphere cannot automatically be criminalized under articles of hate speech or defamation. If any party objects, legal mechanisms such as defamation complaints must be pursued, not through destruction. In the future, it is hoped that all parties will channel their aspirations in a peaceful and lawful manner, so that public order is maintained while the handling of criminals is carried out professionally and fairly.