The passing of the Bill on Amendments to Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (RUU KUHAP) into law by the House of Representatives (DPR) became the central topic of discussion at Pojok Bulaksumur on Thursday (Nov. 20) at the main hall of the UGM Central Office. The topic drew attention as the recent approval of the bill has sparked a wide range of public responses.
Many have expressed concerns that the newly passed KUHAP still leaves several questions unresolved, especially regarding terms related to coercive measures such as arrest, search, and seizure, while the supervisory mechanisms implied in the law remain weak.
Dr. Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, a criminal law expert at UGM, explained that in matters of seizure, search, arrest, and detention, the terminology used in the new law does not differ substantively from that of the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code.
“There are no fundamental changes. But that is precisely the weakness. Legal reform should emphasize human rights. When we speak of civil society coalitions, we are speaking of human rights. Ideally, every arrest or detention should require a decision from the district court. These are the kinds of judicial processes that the new Criminal Procedure Code does not yet accommodate, even though they were actually included in the previous KUHAP,” he said.
Dr. Akbar also raised concerns over the regulation of wiretapping in the new KUHAP. Based on the Constitutional Court’s ruling, wiretapping must be regulated in detail, and without a specific law, it cannot be carried out.
“It appears that the new KUHAP does not explicitly state that wiretapping is prohibited in the absence of implementing legislation. Any form of covert recording or wiretapping must follow clear legal provisions,” he emphasized.
Meanwhile, a lecturer at the Department of Politics and Government, Alfath Bagus Panuntun El Nur Indonesia, stated that the passage of the law has triggered a wide range of political responses from the public. Many believe that the DPR’s approval of the bill opens the door to the misuse of authority.
According to him, the public has grown increasingly skeptical. In practice, many procedural requirements have already been overlooked, and the new law introduces additional powers.
“Civil society’s political concerns are very real, as they see many actors with vested interests pushing for the passage of this bill, from the police, the prosecutors, the judiciary, and even Commission III of the House of Representatives,” he said.
The expert noted that the bill’s passage has led to a level of abstraction and complexity that makes it difficult for the public to fully grasp. The current political reality, he argued, has exhausted the public and led many to distance themselves from politics.
“Numerous reports on issues occurring on the ground have led people to increasingly detach themselves from our socio-political system,” he explained.
The phenomenon of structured depoliticization, he continued, has given society the illusion of greater freedom while simultaneously distancing them from critical political education. In communities, he observed a decline in civic capacity, leading to apathy toward the passage of the RUU KUHAP.
Although the civic space is narrowing, Alfath reminded the audience that civil society still has room to voice its concerns. He stressed the importance of strengthening political, civic, legal, and rights-based education, as citizens must understand their rights and responsibilities.
“Today, we see very few new generations interested in becoming mediators between the state and society. This is, I believe, a serious problem. Public participation, while appearing wide, has become increasingly shallow. People fall into FOMO and get absorbed in social media,” he said.
Author: Salwa
Editor: Agung Nugroho
Post-editor: Rajendra Arya
Photographer: Firsto Adi