The Concept of Being Caught in the Act in the KUHAP

The juridical term that underlies OTT is "caught in the act". This definition is explained inArticle 1 number 19 of the KUHAP (Law No. 8 of 1981). According to the article, a person is considered caught in the act if:
  • Caught at the time committing a criminal act;
  • Caught immediately after a criminal act is committed;
  • Shortly thereafter chased by the public (shouted by the crowd) as the perpetrator; or
  • A moment later on him evidence was found that strongly indicates his involvement.
So, the concept of OTT is actually not new. The difference is:
  • Caught in the Act (Criminal Procedure Code): Tends to be spontaneous. For example, patrolling police catching a thief in action.
  • Hand-Catching Operation (OTT): Tends to be planned through investigation, monitoring, and arrests at a predicted moment (e.g., during a bribery transaction).
This is what often causes debate: can an arrest planned for days still be called "caught in the act"? Many experts say it is permissible as long as the arrest is carried outright whenthe transaction or criminal act occurs.

OTT in the Criminal Justice System Update (New Criminal Procedure Code)

Currently, Indonesia is updating its criminal justice system. The update to the Criminal Procedure Code aims to strengthen procedural justice (due process of law) and protect the rights of citizens. This means that OTT carried out by law enforcement, including the KPK, must also comply with these principles and must not be arbitrary. The update to the Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes the importance of the right to legal assistance and official notification to the family, which was often considered neglected in sudden OTTs. With this update, OTT is not only viewed from its effectiveness, but also from how the process maintains fairness.
  • Eddy O.S. Hiariej reminding that OTT must not turn into a trap (entrapment), where officers "lure" someone into committing a crime, because that is against the law.
  • Barda Nawawi Arief argues that OTT is a form of progressive law enforcement, as long as the goal is for the public good. However, if it is carried out without proper procedures, the results of OTT can be overturned in court because it is considered invalid.