Legal Literacy - In 2026, precisely on January 2, 2026, a historical record was made in the context of criminal law reform and criminal procedure law nationally in the form of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which have been successfully created by legal professionals in this country. If we look at the history of the formation of national laws and regulations, this is certainly a major achievement because it has created and updated the Criminal Code, which previously used Dutch colonial products (Law No. 1 of 1946) and has been used nationally for approximately 80 years, and the Criminal Procedure Code, which is an authentic legal product of the Indonesian nation that was previously created by Law No. 8 of 1981 and has been used nationally for approximately 45 years. The reform of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code has historically and theoretically influenced the criminal law system in force in this country, both in terms of regulation and law enforcement. One example can be seen in the new Criminal Procedure Code, which includes the concept of “Plea Bargaining” which was not recognized in the previous Criminal Procedure Code. This shows that the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code not only changes the contextual aspect, but also incorporates the concept of reform in the criminal law system.
Definition of “Plea Bargaining”
In short, it can be understood that Plea Bargaining is a mechanism or concept of legal resolution of criminal cases for the Defendant to admit his/her guilt in a criminal act and cooperate in the examination by submitting evidence supporting his/her confession in exchange for a lighter sentence. (Article 1 Number 16 of Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code).
Prof. Mahfud MD also explained that plea bargain is a peaceful settlement in which the defendant admits guilt and agrees to a sentence with the prosecutor, which is then ratified by the judge, as a new mechanism in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Objectives of the “Plea Bargaining” Mechanism
A common problem that often arises in every judicial institution is the slow and lengthy process of resolving cases. Seeing this problem, countries that adhere to the "common law" legal system have begun to develop the concept of "Plea Bargaining" by prioritizing efficiency, simplicity, expediency, and prioritizing out-of-court settlements. With the concept of "Plea Bargaining" in the criminal justice system, it is hoped that it can alleviate the burden on the criminal justice system so that the resolution process becomes faster and will prevent the court from accumulating cases so that the court can have more time to resolve other cases. In addition, "Plea Bargaining" can also ease the work of the court and the prosecutor's office, thus saving budget, time, and energy in resolving cases.
Furthermore, another objective of the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism is to strengthen the Dominus Litis principle for prosecutors. The meaning of Dominus Litis itself comes from Latin, namely dominus which means owner and litis which means case or lawsuit. The Dominus Litis principle affirms that the Public Prosecutor (JPU) is the authority authorized to monopolize charges to control cases. The JPU becomes the determining party as to whether a case can be continued to court or not.
In line with the intent of the elaboration above, the role of the JPU in the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism is a form of strengthening the function of the prosecutor as "dominus litis" or case controller. In the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism, there is a negotiation process carried out between the JPU and the defendant or his legal counsel, and the JPU can fully assess and balance the applicable legal rules with the principle of expediency in providing his demands. In addition, through this "Plea Bargaining" mechanism, the public prosecutor can still carry out his duties in the context of representing the interests of victims and the community and can actually accelerate the work of the public prosecutor to provide justice for victims.
An equally important objective of the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism is to provide benefits for the Defendant, the Victim, and Law Enforcement Officials. Through this mechanism, each party will obtain its own advantages. For example, for a defendant, based on their guilty plea, it opens up the opportunity to negotiate with the Public Prosecutor to receive a lenient sentence or a reduction in punishment. Furthermore, according to Mien Rukmini's view, the judicial process must be carried out based on the principle of a fast trial or constante justitie or speedy trial, which aims to prevent suspects/defendants from experiencing physical and mental suffering due to prolonged examination. Then, for the victim, the benefit obtained by implementing the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism, for example, will make it easier for the Victim to obtain justice, because in the "Plea Bargaining" mechanism there is an option for Compensation or Restitution carried out by the Defendant for the losses suffered by the victim. The next advantage for Law Enforcement Officials is that the existence of a "Plea Bargaining" mechanism that provides efficiency in the process of resolving cases will automatically ease the workload of Law Enforcement Officials.
Comment (0)
Write a comment