RKUHP Ratification and Legal Implications
📌 The Revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHP) was recently ratified by the DPR (House of Representatives), impacting all Indonesian citizens, including officials.
⚖️ The current legal foundation for criminal procedure is the KUHAP, which regulates trial procedures, unlike the KUHP that governs criminal offenses.
💡 The original KUHAP was a milestone of reform meant to replace repressive colonial-era laws, covering processes from arrest and search to a more modern judicial system.

Deficiencies and Need for Update
💻 The existing KUHAP is considered outdated, especially in handling modern challenges like cybercrimes and the necessity for digital evidence, prompting the government to initiate the RKUHP update.
🏛️ Despite aiming for modernization, the RKUHP has triggered significant criticism from legal experts and academics regarding potential overreach.

Controversial Provisions and Constitutional Concerns
🚨 Four substantive powers in the RKUHP are deemed highly problematic, primarily concerning the re-expansion of state power and the weakening of judicial oversight.
🎤 Interception (Wiretapping): The RKUHP allows wiretapping based on internal investigator requests without explicitly requiring a court order for all types, conflicting with the Constitutional Court's ruling mandating judicial control, potentially violating massive privacy rights.
📜 Seizure/Confiscation: The definition of "urgent circumstances" for seizure is broadened, allowing personal data and electronic documents to be seized more easily without prior judicial control, challenging the right to private property under Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution.
⏱️ Arrest and Detention: The RKUHP extends detention duration and provides new grounds for detention *before* an initial hearing by a judge, eroding due process guarantees and potentially violating ICCPR Article 9.
📵 Blocking/Sealing (Pemblokiran): The power to block accounts, assets, or sensitive digital access lacks clear parameters, threatening freedom of expression and communication (Article 28F), and could disproportionately target critics.

RKUHP vs. Rule of Law Principles
⚖️ The RKUHP is criticized for potentially reversing the primary principle of the Rule of Law (Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution)—the limitation of power—by normalizing the expansion of state power.
❗ Key procedural principles potentially violated include procedural legality (lack of mandatory judicial permits for all actions), proportionality (weak urgency basis for interception/blocking), and accountability (over-dominance of investigator decisions).

Judicial Review as the Final Safeguard
🏛️ The ultimate control mechanism is Judicial Review at the Constitutional Court (MK) under Article 24C Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution, which has the authority to test the law against the Constitution.
👤 Indonesian citizens, groups, or legal entities whose constitutional rights are directly harmed can file a petition if the law is officially enacted.
⚖️ The primary focus for testing will be provisions related to wiretapping without a judge’s permit (privacy violation), extended detention (due process violation), and digital blocking (communication rights violation).

Key Points & Insights
➡️ The RKUHP faces strong criticism for potentially shifting power from judges to investigators, risking a return to repressive patterns.
➡️ The provisions on interception and seizure are highly contentious because they reduce the mandatory requirement for prior judicial approval, threatening privacy and property rights.
➡️ The final safeguard against unconstitutional aspects of the RKUHP lies in the Judicial Review process at the Constitutional Court once the law is officially promulgated.
➡️ Citizens whose constitutional rights are infringed by the new law are eligible to challenge the relevant articles in the Constitutional Court.

📸 Video summarized with SummaryTube.com on Dec 02, 2025, 14:13 UTC