Indonesia has entered an important phase in its legal history with the enactment of the National Criminal Code (KUHP) and the agenda for the renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) since January 2, 2026. This change is often seen as a symbol of legal decolonization, marking the end of dependence on colonial-era criminal law that is more than a century old.[1] This momentum raises optimism that Indonesian criminal law finally has its own face, born from the values and needs of the national community.

However, legal reform is not sufficiently judged by its origins or historical symbolism. This raises the question of whether this new criminal law truly brings substantial changes in the way the state treats its citizens, or merely presents normative reforms without real transformation in practice?

Criminal law has a special character because it is directly related to the use of coercive state power. When the state imposes a sentence, it is not only a person's right to move that is restricted, but also their dignity and fundamental freedoms.[2] Therefore, criminal law should not be understood merely as a collection of prohibitions and threats of sanctions, but as a mirror of how the state views its citizens: as subjects to be protected or as objects of control.

From this perspective, criminal law reform should be directed at limiting state power proportionally, not at expanding the scope of criminalization. A democratic state governed by the rule of law demands that criminal law be used carefully and as ultimum remedium.

Legacy of the Old Paradigm and the Burden of the Sentencing System

For decades, the colonial Criminal Code shaped criminal law practices that were oriented towards retribution. Imprisonment became the primary response to almost every violation of the law, regardless of the effectiveness of the punishment or its social impact.[3] As a result, the correctional system in Indonesia has experienced chronic overcapacity and has failed to carry out its rehabilitative function.

The National Criminal Code comes with the promise of a paradigm shift. The sentencing approach is beginning to open up space for alternative punishments such as social work, probation, and an emphasis on proportionality.[4] Normatively, this reflects an effort to make sentencing more rational and humane.

Although it brings progressive ideas, changes at the normative level do not automatically guarantee changes at the practical level. Law enforcement experience in Indonesia shows that law enforcement officials are often trapped in formalistic and legalistic ways of thinking.[5] Law enforcement is more focused on fulfilling the elements of the article, not on achieving substantive justice.

If the mentality and legal culture do not change, the National Criminal Code risks being implemented with the old logic. In such conditions, the new criminal law will only become a “new package” for law enforcement practices that are not sensitive to justice and human rights.

The Strategic Role of KUHAP Reform

In this context, the renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is a determining factor in the success of criminal law reform. The criminal procedure code regulates how state power is exercised in the law enforcement process, from investigation to execution of decisions.[6] For the public, the experience of dealing with the law often determines the perception of justice more than the content of the criminal norms.

The new KUHAP is expected to strengthen the principle of due process of law, limit the use of detention, and guarantee the rights of suspects and defendants more effectively.[7] Without serious reform of the procedural law, changes to substantive criminal law will lose their meaning.

On the other hand, the National Criminal Code also contains a number of provisions that have triggered public debate. Several articles are considered to have the potential for multiple interpretations and open up space for criminalization of behavior that should be in the private sphere.[8] These concerns raise fundamental questions about the limits of the state's authority to regulate the private lives of citizens.

Criminal law that is too interventionist risks creating fear and eroding civil liberties. Therefore, the application of the National Criminal Code requires the wisdom of law enforcement officials in interpreting and applying norms, so that criminal law does not turn into an excessive instrument of social control.

The success of criminal law reform is not only determined by the quality of the laws, but also by the legal culture of society. A law-abiding society is not only obedient, but also critical of law enforcement practices.[9] Public understanding of their rights in criminal proceedings will narrow the scope for abuse of authority.

In addition, criminal law reform requires serious improvements to the human resources of law enforcement officials. Education and training should not stop at technical aspects, but must instill perspectives of ethics, integrity and human rights.

Closing

The enactment of the National Criminal Code and the agenda for the renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code is a collective test for the Indonesian legal system. This renewal will lose its meaning if it is not accompanied by a change in perspective and law enforcement culture. The new face of criminal law should be reflected in practices that are more humane, fair and proportional, not just in the wording of articles.

If this renewal is able to limit state power while protecting human dignity, then public expectations will be justified. However, if old practices are maintained, the assumption that the new criminal law is merely a “change of clothes” will be difficult to refute.