Legal Literacy - Human rights are essentially markers of the limits of power. They are present not to hinder the state from working, but to ensure that power is exercised without damaging human dignity. Within the framework of the rule of law, human rights function as a normative fence that limits the extent to which the state may act against its citizens, no matter how noble the goals claimed in the name of order, security, or national stability. The Indonesian Constitution explicitly affirms this guarantee, placing the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights as the state's obligation. However, the dynamics of criminal law reform through the enactment of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code new law actually show the opposite symptom, when human rights are no longer positioned as a basic principle, but as a variable that can be negotiated.
The Intersection of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP)
The intersection between the Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) forms a criminal law landscape that has the potential to shift the function of law from a limitation of power to a means of legitimizing that power itself. In the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the expansion of the discretion of law enforcement officials at the investigation stage is the clearest example. Provisions that give investigators the authority, on the orders of investigators, to carry out arrests, detentions, searches, and even forensic data retrieval, as reflected in Article 5 paragraph (2), show how coercive state actions can be carried out without adequate judicial control. The phrase 'urgent circumstances,' which is left entirely to the subjective assessment of officials, obscures the principle of due process of law and weakens citizens' rights to obtain protection from arbitrary actions.
Similar problems arise in the regulation of searches, seizures, and blockades that can be carried out without a court order. Provisions like this not only shift the balance between the state and citizens, but also change the basic logic criminal procedure law. If previously a judge's permission was positioned as a main requirement to guarantee objectivity and accountability, now that permission can be set aside on the grounds of urgency. In the context of human rights, this condition places personal freedom, the right to security, and the right to privacy in a very vulnerable position. Human rights violations are no longer present as deviations, but as a logical consequence of the legal design itself.
The concentration of power becomes increasingly apparent as the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) places all civil servant investigators and certain investigators under the coordination and supervision of the police. This arrangement creates a structure of superiority that is not only institutionally problematic but also dangerous from a human rights perspective. When one institution holds almost absolute control over the initial stages of the criminal justice process, internal and external oversight mechanisms lose their corrective power. In fact, the right to obtain justice is one of the most frequently violated rights in law enforcement practices in Indonesia. In such a situation, the new KUHAP has the potential to escalate these violations, rather than improve them.
On the other hand, the new Criminal Code (KUHP) shows a tendency towards criminalization that directly affects the core of civil liberties. Provisions regarding treason with aggravated criminal penalties, including the death penalty, demonstrate how criminal law is used to protect political power, not solely to protect the state in a constitutional sense. Similarly, articles regulating insults against the president and vice president reopen the space for criminalizing criticism, which in a democratic system should be protected. When political expression and public criticism are threatened with criminal penalties, the right to freedom of expression no longer stands as a fundamental right but as a privilege that depends on the tolerance of those in power.
Criminalization also extends to the realm of freedom of religion and belief through the expansion of offenses related to religion and belief. Flexibly formulated norms open up opportunities for moralistic interpretations that are potentially discriminatory, especially towards minority groups. From an international human rights perspective, the state is obliged to protect the diversity of beliefs and expressions, not regulate them through criminal penalties. When criminal law enters this area without clear boundaries, what occurs is not the protection of public order but the normalization of repression based on the morality of the majority.
This situation becomes more complex when the Criminal Code criminalizes demonstrations or parades in public spaces that do not meet certain administrative requirements. This kind of arrangement marks a serious setback in the protection of the rights to assembly and expression. Within the human rights framework, the right to express opinions in public is not a right granted by the state but a right that may only be restricted strictly, proportionally, and based on clear laws. When administrative non-compliance is used as a basis for criminalization, criminal law loses its character as an ultimum remedium and turns into a tool of social control.
Respect for Human Rights
In the theory of a democratic rule of law, respect for human rights is not a gift, but an obligation inherent in every use of power. The new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), when read systematically, show a tendency to strengthen the state without being balanced by strengthening the mechanism for protecting rights. Public trust in the law is not built through fear of sanctions, but through the belief that the law works fairly, rationally, and humanely. When criminal law deviates from these principles, the legitimacy of the rule of law itself is at stake.
The years ahead will be a crucial test for the direction of human rights enforcement in Indonesia. Will criminal law develop as an instrument of justice that protects human dignity, or will it instead fall into a tool of domination that subtly silences freedom? At this crossroads, the role of academics, legal practitioners, and civil society becomes very decisive, not merely to criticize, but to ensure that the law remains faithful to its fundamental purpose. In the silence of articles and procedures, there is actually a major stake in the direction of the rule of law and the future of citizens' freedom.
Comments (0)
Write a comment