The Due Process Paradox in the New Criminal Procedure Code: Expansion of Coercive Measures and an Integrated Judicial Oversight Model in the Investigation Stage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62710/6strmq61Keywords:
New Criminal Procedure Code, Investigation, Coercive Measures, Due Process of Law, Pretrial Review, Judicial OversightAbstract
The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code marks a substantial transformation of investigation and coercive measures. On the one hand, the new Code strengthens suspects’ rights, broadens pretrial review, requires at least two pieces of evidence for suspect designation and several restrictions on liberty, and provides more explicit safeguards for vulnerable groups. On the other hand, the catalogue of coercive measures is expanded to include suspect designation, arrest, detention, search, seizure, interception, examination of correspondence, blocking orders, and travel bans, thus preserving a broad space for state intervention into individual liberty. This article applies normative legal research with a descriptive-prescriptive analytical character, relying on secondary legal materials through library research and employing statutory and conceptual approaches. It argues that the central problem of the new Code does not merely concern the existence of rights-protective norms, but the consistency of judicial oversight over investigative discretion. By examining Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014, contemporary pretrial practice on suspect designation, and the oversight architecture of the new Criminal Procedure Code, this article proposes an integrated judicial oversight model based on legality, necessity, proportionality, written reasons, judicial authorization, post factum review, exclusionary rules, and effective remedies. The model is necessary to ensure that the expansion of coercive powers does not reproduce crime-control dominance, but moves toward substantive due process of law.
Downloads
References
Abrar, A. (2025). Analisis Yuridis Praperadilan Terhadap Penetapan Tersangka (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 10/Pid. Pra/2024/Pn. Bdg). UNIVERSITAS NASIONAL.
Ardhan, A., & Dadek, T. A. (2026). TRANSFORMASI PENEGAKAN DUE PROCESS OF LAW DALAM TAHAPAN PENYIDIKAN DI INDONESIA: ANTARA PERLINDUNGAN HAK TERSANGKA DAN EFEKTIVITAS PENEGAKAN HUKUM. Legal Standing: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 10(1), 41–54.
Aridewa, R., & Permana, W. P. N. (2025). Reformulasi Pengaturan Prapenuntutan dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (RKUHAP) untuk Menjamin Keadilan dan Kepastian Hukum pada Proses Peradilan Pidana. Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia.
Firmansyah, S. H., & Farid, A. M. (2022). Politik hukum praperadilan sebagai lembaga perlindungan hak tersangka ditinjau dari putusan mahkamah konstitusi nomor 21/puu-xii/2014 mengenai penetapan tersangka. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Dan Keadilan, 3(2), 90–103.
Firmanto, T., Sufiarina, S., Reumi, F., & Saleh, I. N. S. (2024). Metodologi penelitian hukum: Panduan komprehensif penulisan ilmiah bidang hukum. PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia.
Ibrahim, J. (2007). Teori & Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing.
Kompas.com. (2024). PN Jaksel kabulkan praperadilan Gubernur Kalsel, cabut status tersangka.
Kusumastuti, E. (2018). Penetapan Tersangka Sebagai Obyek Praperadilan. Yuridika, 33(1), 1–18.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2014). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014.
Noor, M. S., Munawar, A., & Rahmathoni, L. Y. (2024). Paradigma baru hukum acara pidana: Rekonstruksi perlindungan hak asasi tersangka dalam proses peradilan. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 5(12).
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford university press.
Prasetya, D. A., & Indraswara, D. (2025). Lompatan Progresif Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) sebagai Upaya Mewujudkan Peradilan Pidana Berkeadilan: Progressive Leaps in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) as an Effort to Realize Fair Criminal Justice. IPMHI Law Journal, 5(2), 315–352.
Rahmania, N. (2025). Upaya Paksa Dalam Ruu Kuhap: Perspektif Model Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Jurnal Kompilasi Hukum, 10(2), 375–392.
Republik Indonesia. (2005). Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengesahan International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Republik Indonesia. (2025). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana
Sitompul, S. M. (2026). Dari KUHAP 1981 Ke KUHAP 2025: Meneguhkan Advokat Sebagai Pilar Keseimbangan Kekuasaan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Yang Modern. Staatsrecht: Jurnal Hukum Kenegaraan Dan Politik Islam, 6(1), 71–96.
Soekanto, S. (2007). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Wibisono, D. K. W., & Hariyanti, D. (2024). The Attorney’s Wiretapping Authority in Special Crimes and Military Crime Connection Cases. KnE Social Sciences, 9(1), 556–569.
Wijaya, W. A., & Setiawan, S. (2025). Peran Pendampingan Advokat dalam Perlindungan Hak Tersangka pada Proses Penyidikan. Jurnal Media Akademik.
Zhafran, D. M., & Mahmud, A. (2024). Penetapan Status Tersangka oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) yang Diajukan Praperadilan. Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, 69–76.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Prastopo Prastopo, Jelli Rita, Ahmad Jaeni, Sugianor Sugianor (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
