The New Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code: Key Developments in Criminal Court Proceedings and Legal Remedies

---

Authors

---

Background

On 2 January 2026, Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code ("New KUHAP") was officially implemented. The implementation of the New KUHAP marks a significant development in Indonesia's criminal procedural framework. In addition to introducing broader institutional and procedural reforms, the New KUHAP also provides a more structured framework for criminal proceedings at court level, including first-instance proceedings, appeals, cassations, and judicial reviews.

This ARMA Update focuses on the four main stages of criminal court proceedings under the New KUHAP, which are: (A) first-instance proceedings; (B) appeal proceedings; (C) cassation proceedings; and (D) judicial reviews.

A. First-Instance Proceedings: Summons, Hearing, and Indictment before the District Court

Under the New KUHAP, the relevant starting point is the defendant's summons to attend trial, which must be validly served by the Public Prosecutor at the defendant's residential address. The delivery of the summons shall be evidenced by an acknowledgement of receipt, whether the defendant accepts it personally or through a third party, such as a family member or an advocate (commonly known as legal counsel). For corporate defendants, the summons shall be served to their management in accordance with the articles of association, and a management representative shall be required to act on behalf of the corporation before the courts.^[1]

The New KUHAP further regulates the content and timing of the summons, including the requirement to state the date, day, and time of the hearing and the type of case, and that it be received by the relevant party at least 7 days before the hearing begins.^[2]

The indictment remains central to the first-instance criminal trial. Under the New KUHAP, the Presiding Judge verifies the defendant's identity at the start of the hearing. In specific cases, either from the beginning or during the proceedings, the Judge or Panel of Judges can, ex officio or upon request from the Public Prosecutor, Defendant, or Legal Counsel, decide to hold the proceedings virtually.

Further, the Public Prosecutor may read out the indictment. At this point, the Presiding Judge must ask whether the defendant understands the indictment; if the defendant does not, the Public Prosecutor must provide the necessary explanation upon the Presiding Judge's request.^[3]

Following the reading of the indictment, the defendant is given the opportunity to raise preliminary objections before the case proceeds to the evidentiary stage. Under the New KUHAP, the defendant or the defendant's legal counsel may submit an objection on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction to examine the case, that the indictment is inadmissible, or that the indictment should be annulled.^[4] It also requires the Public Prosecutor to be given the opportunity to express their opinion on the objection.^[5]

After hearing the objection and the Public Prosecutor's opinion, the court will render a decision on the objection in accordance with the New KUHAP. If the objection is accepted, the case will not be proceeded further before the court. If the objection is rejected, or if the judge considers that it should be decided only after the case is fully examined, the hearing will proceed to the evidentiary stage.^[6]

At the evidentiary stage, the Presiding Judge must examine whether the witnesses and experts who have been summoned are present and may take measures to ensure that they do not communicate with one another before giving their testimony. This aims to prevent any mutual influence that might undermine the independence and truth of the testimony. The New KUHAP introduces the concept of a pre-trial hearing, as in common-law states, whereby the Public Prosecutor and the defendant, or the defendant's counsel, are given the opportunity to provide a brief opening statement explaining the evidence and witnesses to be presented at trial.^[7]

The examination of evidence then proceeds with the Public Prosecutor presenting its case first. The Public Prosecutor presents witnesses, experts, and evidence first, followed by the defendant or the defendant's counsel. The New KUHAP further recognises the examination of evidence at trial, including evidence submitted before the court as part of the evidentiary process.^[8]

Expert evidence may also play an important role in first-instance proceedings. Under the New KUHAP, any person requested to provide an expert opinion, including forensic medical experts, doctors, or other experts, is required to provide expert testimony for the sake of justice. Furthermore, it allows the presiding judge, where necessary, to clarify issues arising during the hearing, to request expert testimony, and to request that the relevant parties submit new materials.^[9]

Under the New KUHAP, after evidence has been submitted by the Public Prosecutor and the defendant or the defendant's counsel, the Public Prosecutor and counsel are given the opportunity to provide oral statements explaining how the evidence presented at trial supports their respective positions. The New KUHAP further provides that, once the examination is declared complete, the Public Prosecutor submits its sentencing demand, including an explanation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.^[10]

The defendant's defence stage is also expressly regulated under the New KUHAP; after the Public Prosecutor submits its sentencing demand, the defendant and/or the defendant's counsel may submit a defence plea. The allowance of the Public Prosecutor to respond to the defence plea is provided, with the requirement that the defendant or the defendant's counsel must always be given the final turn before the court proceeds further.^[11]

The court may reopen the hearing in certain circumstances. Based on the New KUHAP, after the examination has been declared closed, the court may reopen the examination either on the Presiding Judge's own authority or upon a reasoned request from the Public Prosecutor, the defendant, or the defendant's counsel. This mechanism provides procedural flexibility where the court considers that further examination is necessary before judgment is rendered.^[12]

Once the examination is complete, the New KUHAP provides that the panel of judges conducts deliberation to reach its decision. It further provides that the district court judgment may be rendered and announced on the same day, or on another day after prior notification to the Public Prosecutor, the defendant, or the defendant's counsel.^[13]

In summary, the first-instance hearing agenda under the New KUHAP may generally be understood to proceed through the following stages:

• summons and attendance of the defendant;^[14]
• verification of the defendant's identity and reading of the indictment;^[15]
• objection or preliminary challenge by the defendant or counsel, Public Prosecutor's opinion, and court decision on the objection;^[16]
• examination of witnesses and experts;^[17]
• examination of evidence;^[18]
• expert testimony where required;^[19]
• sentencing demand, defence plea, response by the Public Prosecutor, and final turn for the defendant or counsel;^[20]
• possible reopening of the examination;^[21] and
• deliberation and judgment.^[22]

B. Appeal Proceedings: Cases Eligible for Appeal and Re-Examination of Witnesses and Experts

The appeal stage is principally governed by the New KUHAP; under this provision, an appeal is an ordinary legal remedy that may be brought before the High Court by the defendant, the defendant's legal counsel, or the Public Prosecutor against any court judgment, with the explicit exception of an acquittal (vrijspraak). The appeal request must be received by the clerk of the district court within seven days after the judgment is rendered or after the judgment is notified to a defendant who was not present at the hearing. If an appeal is filed, the clerk must prepare a certificate signed by the clerk and the appellant, and notify the appeal request to the other party.^[23]

Accordingly, a case may proceed to appeal where the first-instance judgment is not accepted by the defendant, the defendant's counsel, or the Public Prosecutor, and the appeal is filed within the statutory seven-day period. This short timeline requires immediate assessment after judgment is rendered. For companies, the appeal decision should be made quickly by considering both legal prospects and commercial consequences.^[24]

The New KUHAP also gives appeal proceedings a more substantive role. If the Public Prosecutor files an appeal, the Public Prosecutor is required to submit an appeal memorandum. If the defendant files an appeal, the defendant may submit an appeal memorandum. The appeal memorandum must be submitted within seven days of the appeal request being filed. If the Public Prosecutor, as appellant, fails to submit the appeal memorandum within this period, the appeal request becomes void.^[25]

Witnesses and experts can be re-examined during the appeal stage. This is because the High Court acts as judex facti, meaning it has the power to re-evaluate the legal facts that were previously reviewed in the lower court. Unlike the Supreme Court, which acts as judex juris, the High Court has the authority to reassess the evidence and facts established during the trial. Therefore, re-examining witnesses or experts is allowed if it helps to uncover the material truth of the case.

At this stage, the Public Prosecutor and/or the defendant may request in the appeal memorandum that witnesses and/or experts who were heard at first instance be re-examined by the High Court. The request must be supported by reasons explaining why the witnesses and/or experts need to be heard again. The request may also cover witnesses and/or experts who did not attend the first-instance proceedings.^[26]

The High Court also has discretion to summon and directly hear the defendant, Public Prosecutor, witnesses, and/or experts if considered necessary. It further provides that the procedure for examining witnesses and/or experts at first instance applies mutatis mutandis to the examination of witnesses and/or experts at the appeal stage.^[27]

This is an important development. Appeal is not necessarily limited to a paper-based review of the district court judgment. In appropriate cases, an appeal may serve as a forum for reassessing witness testimony, expert evidence, evidentiary gaps, or issues not fully explored at first instance.^[28]

C. Cassation Proceedings: Cases Eligible for Cassation and Scope of Supreme Court Review

The defendant or the Public Prosecutor may submit a cassation request to the Supreme Court against a criminal judgment rendered at the final level by a court other than the Supreme Court. In general terms, this means that cassation is available against qualifying final-level judgments, subject to the statutory limitations set out in the New KUHAP.^[29]

However, the New KUHAP expressly limits the types of cases that may be brought to cassation. Cassation is not available against: (i) an acquittal; (ii) a judicial pardon decision; (iii) a decision imposing measures; (iv) a decision concerning an offence punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years or a Category V fine; and (v) a decision examined under summary proceedings.^[30]

Accordingly, not all criminal cases may be brought to cassation. A case may proceed to cassation only if it falls within the scope of Article 299 of the New KUHAP and does not fall within the excluded categories. For commercial defendants, this means that the availability of cassation must be carefully assessed before deciding on litigation strategy after appeal.^[31]

Regarding the scope of cassation review, the Supreme Court examines whether: (i) a provision of law or regulation was not applied or was applied incorrectly; (ii) the manner of adjudication was not conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; and/or (iii) the lower court exceeded its authority.^[32]

The Supreme Court does not reassess whether the alleged criminal act was factually proven. In other words, cassation is primarily a legal review, not a full factual re-examination of the case. The Supreme Court's review focuses on errors of law, procedural violations, or excess of authority.^[33]

Nevertheless, the New KUHAP also provides that, if considered necessary for the cassation examination, the Supreme Court may summon and directly hear the defendant, witnesses, experts, and/or the Public Prosecutor. This does not change the nature of cassation as a legal review, but it provides the Supreme Court with procedural flexibility in appropriate cases.^[34]

D. Judicial Review: Extraordinary Remedy Against Final and Binding Judgments

Judicial review, or peninjauan kembali, is regulated under the New KUHAP and is an extraordinary legal remedy against a court judgment that has obtained permanent legal force.^[35]

A convicted person may submit a request for judicial review to the Supreme Court of a final and binding judgment. The request may only be submitted by the convicted person or the convicted person's heirs. If the convicted person has passed away, the request may be filed by the surviving spouse, parents, children, or siblings. The request may also be submitted through a specifically authorised advocate.^[36]

Judicial review is available only on limited statutory grounds. These include: (i) the discovery of new circumstances or new evidence that creates a strong indication that, if known at trial, the outcome could have been different; (ii) proof that one or more judges who rendered the conviction were found guilty by a final and binding judgment of accepting a gift or promise intended to influence the judgment; and/or (iii) a clear judicial mistake or manifest error in the decision.^[37]

The New KUHAP also provides that a request for judicial review may generally be submitted only once, except where there is a new circumstance or new evidence, or where there is a contradiction between two final and binding judgments.^[38]

A judicial review should therefore not be treated as a continuation of appeal or cassation. It is not an ordinary legal remedy and is available only after the judgment has become final and binding. For companies, directors, and management, a judicial review may be relevant only in exceptional circumstances, such as new evidence, serious judicial misconduct, or a clear and manifest judicial error.^[39]

E. Determining Eligibility for Appeal, Cassation, and the Finality of Judgements

A case may be appealed where a first-instance judgment is not accepted by the defendant, the defendant's counsel, or the Public Prosecutor, and the appeal request is filed within seven days after the judgment is rendered or the judgment is notified to the absent defendant. In practical terms, an appeal is the ordinary legal remedy against a first-instance district court judgment.^[40]

A case may proceed to cassation where the judgment is a qualifying final-level criminal judgment rendered by a court other than the Supreme Court and does not fall within the exclusions under Article 299 of the New KUHAP. Cassation is therefore not available for acquittals, judicial pardon decisions, decisions imposing measures, decisions concerning offences punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years or a Category V fine, or decisions examined under summary proceedings.^[41]

A case becomes final and binding, or inkracht, when the parties no longer have an available ordinary legal remedy within the statutory period, when the right to file the relevant legal remedy has lapsed, or when no further ordinary legal remedy is available under the New KUHAP. Once a case becomes final and binding, it may no longer be challenged through ordinary legal remedies. The only remaining avenue is judicial review, an extraordinary remedy available only if the statutory grounds under the New KUHAP are satisfied.^[42]

1. Article 193 of the New KUHAP. ↩
2. Article 194 of the New KUHAP. ↩
3. Article 204 of the New KUHAP. ↩
4. Article 206 paragraph (1) of the New KUHAP. ↩
5. Article 206 paragraph (4) of the New KUHAP. ↩
6. Article 206 of the New KUHAP. ↩
7. Articles 209 and 210 of the New KUHAP. ↩
8. Articles 210, 214, and 216 of the New KUHAP. ↩
9. Articles 229 and 230 of the New KUHAP. ↩
10. Article 231 of the New KUHAP. ↩
11. Article 231 of the New KUHAP. ↩
12. Article 232 of the New KUHAP. ↩
13. Article 233 of the New KUHAP. ↩
14. Articles 193 and 194 of the New KUHAP. ↩
15. Article 204 of the New KUHAP. ↩
16. Article 206 of the New KUHAP. ↩
17. Articles 209 and 210 of the New KUHAP. ↩
18. Article 216 of the New KUHAP. ↩
19. Articles 229 and 230 of the New KUHAP. ↩
20. Article 231 of the New KUHAP. ↩
21. Article 232 of the New KUHAP. ↩
22. Article 233 of the New KUHAP. ↩
23. Article 285 of the New KUHAP. ↩
24. Article 285 of the New KUHAP. ↩
25. Article 289 of the New KUHAP. ↩
26. Articles 290 and 291 of the New KUHAP. ↩
27. Articles 292 and 293 of the New KUHAP. ↩
28. Articles 290 to 293 of the New KUHAP. ↩
29. Article 299 paragraph (1) of the New KUHAP. ↩
30. Article 299 paragraph (2) of the New KUHAP. ↩
31. Article 299 of the New KUHAP. ↩
32. Article 308 paragraph (1) of the New KUHAP. ↩
33. Article 308 paragraph (2) of the New KUHAP. ↩
34. Article 308 paragraph (5) of the New KUHAP. ↩
35. Article 318 paragraph (1) of the New KUHAP. ↩
36. Article 318 paragraphs (1) to (5) of the New KUHAP. ↩
37. Article 318 paragraph (5) of the New KUHAP. ↩
38. Article 318 paragraph (6) of the New KUHAP. ↩
39. Article 318 of the New KUHAP. ↩
40. Article 285 of the New KUHAP. ↩
41. Article 299 of the New KUHAP. ↩
42. Article 318 of the New KUHAP. ↩

---

Disclaimer:
This client update is the property of ARMA Law and intended for providing general information and should not be treated as legal advice, nor shall it be relied upon by any party for any circumstance. ARMA Law has no intention to provide a specific legal advice with regard to this client update.

Go to

1. A. First-Instance Proceedings: Summons, Hearing, and Indictment before the District Court
2. B. Appeal Proceedings: Cases Eligible for Appeal and Re-Examination of Witnesses and Experts
3. C. Cassation Proceedings: Cases Eligible for Cassation and Scope of Supreme Court Review
4. D. Judicial Review: Extraordinary Remedy Against Final and Binding Judgments
5. E. Determining Eligibility for Appeal, Cassation, and the Finality of Judgements

No results found

Related Updates

Latest Updates