Legal Literacy - Discussing the law of looting during demonstrations in Indonesia. Is this action justified? See the analysis according to Article 363 of the Criminal Code regarding theft.

Chronology of Riots and Looting

At the end of August 2025, massive demonstrations took place in a number of cities in Indonesia. This action was triggered by public disappointment with government policies that were considered increasingly detrimental. The demonstration, which initially focused on conveying opinions and advocacy, then turned into riots, especially after a number of public officials made statements that were considered provocative and hurt the people's hearts. One of them came from Ahmad Sahroni, a member of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI). On Saturday afternoon, August 30, Sahroni's house in Tanjung Priok was attacked by a mob. Recordings circulating on social media showed the gate of his house being damaged, while a number of his belongings such as Iron Man statues, diplomas, certificates, and collection cars were stolen and damaged. From this point, the mass action then spread to the residences of a number of other public figures such as Eko Patrio, Surya Utama alias Uya Kuya, Nafa Urbach, to the Minister of Finance (Menkeu) Sri Mulyani, who had previously made statements that were considered inappropriate. Their houses were also looted or damaged by unidentified groups. This series of events finally raises an important question: How does Indonesian criminal law view looting that occurs in the context of demonstrations?

Looting as Aggravated Theft

Looting in criminal law is not known as a specific term. Criminal law expert from Trisakti University, Abdul Fickar Hadjar, in an interview with Metro TV on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, emphasized:
“Looting is mass theft, meaning it can still be processed legally. When it has been done, the crime has occurred. The fact that the proceeds of the crime are returned does not eliminate the criminal law.”
This statement shows that although the term looting is not explicitly stated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), the act is seen as aggravated theft. Taking other people's property by force and in groups, especially in riot situations, is considered a form of theft aggravated by circumstances. This is in line with the provisions of Article 363 of the Criminal Code, which regulates a heavier threat of criminal penalties than ordinary theft. Article 363 of the Criminal Code becomes the main criminal umbrella for looting cases. Paragraph (1) of the article states that theft that occurs during a fire, riot, or at night in a house can be punished with a maximum imprisonment of seven years. Because the looting of officials' houses occurred in the midst of riots, the perpetrators are clearly threatened with punishment according to these provisions. More broadly, criminal sanctions aim to enforce order and protect society from public crime. In other words, looting is not only a crime against individuals, but also damages public safety and trust. Therefore, the Criminal Code emphasizes that perpetrators of looting must be processed legally as regulated, in order to provide a deterrent effect and restore public order. In the days after the demo, the police immediately took action. On August 30, 2025, East Jakarta Metro Police arrested 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 in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code which 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.