Video Summary - Kuliah Umum PJJ Hukum : Tantangan KUHP di Masa Transisi: Keadilan Prosedural vs Substantif

Main Ideas / Concepts Conveyed

1) Event Framing and Theme (KUHP Transition)

The webinar/public lecture focuses on the challenges of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP/KUHP baru) during the transition period, particularly the tension between:

Procedural justice (how the process is conducted), and
Substantive justice (whether outcomes reflect justice in substance).

A key emphasis is that many transition problems do not stem mainly from the Criminal Code text itself, but from compatibility issues with:

KUAP (Criminal Procedure Code), and
Law No. 1 of 2026 concerning criminal adjustments.

2) Agenda and Structure of the Event

Technical instructions

Ask participants to activate cameras and deactivate microphones during the event.

Program flow

Opening (including basmalah)
Speech by the head of the Law PJJ (Distance Learning) S1 study program
General lecture by the resource person (Dr. Khairul Huda)
Discussion and Q&A session
Closing / closing remarks

3) Key Message From the Study Program Head (Dinda Riskanita)

The transition to the new Criminal Code requires intellectual and moral readiness from:

academics,
law enforcers, and
law students (future legal intellectuals).

Procedural and substantive justice should not be treated as separate; they must support each other so that law becomes a tool for:

justice and
humanity.

The lecture is positioned as a forum to deepen critical understanding of national criminal law reform.

Resource Person’s Core Lecture: “Challenges of KUAP in the Transition Period (Procedural vs Substantive)”

A) Clarifying “Transition Period”

The speaker argues that the TOR (terms of reference) did not clearly define “transition period.”

Practically, the described meaning is:

The new Criminal Code is implemented starting January 2, 2026.
But criminal acts committed before that date are still processed using the relevant prior provisions.

Thus, the “real” complexity is more about:

KUAP (Criminal Procedure Code) and
Law No. 1 of 2026 than about the Criminal Code provisions alone.

B) “Substance vs Transaction” Framing

The lecture aims to explain conceptual/fundamental changes in criminal law arising from the 2023 Criminal Code.

The speaker stresses that the debate on procedural justice vs substantive justice should be directed to KUAP, because substantive outcomes depend on whether KUAP can implement the new substantive ideas.

C) Background: Four Missions Behind the 2023 Criminal Code

The reform is described as being driven by four major missions, each producing certain outputs:

Decolonization of criminal law
- The old KUHP is portrayed as a colonial product.
- Reform aims to build a new Indonesian legal identity.
Democratization of criminal law
- Reform aims at balanced consideration of multiple factors.
- The speaker connects this to a shift toward neoclassical thinking emphasizing equilibrium.
Consolidation of criminal law
- Historically, Indonesia had one main criminal law source (KUHP), but later many laws outside KUHP emerged.
- Consolidation aims to prevent fragmentation and preserve legal order.
Adaptation and harmonization of criminal law
- Criminal law should respond to administrative development and social change, including:
  - socio-economic shifts, and
  - the impacts of the social media / information technology era.

D) How Reform Manifests Structurally (Systematics)

Comparison between the 2023 Criminal Code and the older KUHP:

Older KUHP: 3 books, 49 chapters, 569 articles
New KUHP: 2 books, 43 chapters, 624 articles

The speaker interprets these structural changes as part of the reform’s mission, including moving away from colonial-model structures.

E) Examples of New/Separate Chapters (Illustrating Independent Indonesian Priorities)

The lecture highlights distinct legal object categories, including:

Crimes against the judicial process (e.g., obstruction/manipulation of judicial process, case engineering/fabrication)
Crimes against religion and belief / religious life
- Framed as a separate chapter to reflect the importance of religion in Indonesian society.
- The speaker notes that prior arrangements may not have clearly separated related concepts (e.g., blasphemy vs heresy).
Human trafficking-related offenses
- Linked to Indonesia’s geographic context and practical realities.
Crimes based on “living law” (living legal delicts)
- Presented as a characteristic of Indonesian legal thinking, but also controversial.
- Framed as a compromise to include it while adding objective safeguards to reduce arbitrariness.
Special crimes in a special chapter The speaker emphasizes these are singled out due to:
- their impact on victims,
- their extreme nature (“super mala perserse,” as cited),
- and the existence of special law enforcement institutions/courts.

Examples mentioned:

- serious human rights crimes,
- terrorism,
- corruption,
- money laundering,
- narcotics smuggling.

F) “Democratization” Explained as a Balancing Principle (Tied to KUAP Design)

The speaker describes democratization as balancing:

formal legality and material legality,
objective and subjective factors,
responsibility frameworks including:
- individual mens rea/fault, and
- corporate accountability.

Key implications noted:

Exceptions to general rules are important (“no rules without exceptions”).
Corporate accountability expands liability beyond internal corporate actors, potentially involving those outside the structure (e.g., controllers/beneficial owners who give orders or benefit).

G) Sentencing/Punishment Aims (General vs Local Values)

Punishment is described as having both:

general values (prevention, correction, socialization), and
local values (conflict resolution).

The speaker argues enforcement has sometimes punished offenders without truly resolving the underlying social conflict.

Implementation Challenge: Why “Procedural Justice” May Dominate in Practice

A) Core Claim: Incompatibility Between KUHP/KUAP

The speaker’s thesis: the Criminal Code is not the main issue, but the compatibility/operational instruments in KUAP are not yet aligned.

As a result, the procedural system may not fully give effect to substantive reforms.

B) Example Issue: Definition of “Crime” and Investigative/Prosecutorial Mechanics

Key transition issues identified:

Under the older framework, there was no clear statutory definition of “crime,” leading to:
- discretion based on investigator preference and theory.
Under the new framework, a crime is defined as:
- an act prohibited by statutory regulations and punishable by criminal sanctions/actions.

However, the speaker argues:

investigative definition (collecting evidence to clarify crime and identify suspects) does not fully cover proving intent elements at every relevant stage required by substantive criminal definitions.

Consequences during transition:

disputes over where and when justification/excuse applies,
difficulty applying justifications during investigative stages versus mainly in court,
procedural outcomes that may not reflect substantive justice.

C) Court Decision Requirements and Missing Mechanisms

The speaker mentions that judges must consider certain guidance guidelines in decisions (citing Article 251 paragraph 1, as described).

Concerns raised include:

what happens if such obligations are not fulfilled,
KUAP may regulate decision types incompletely, including potential gaps related to:
- non-criminal decision handling,
- restorative justice mechanisms,
- supervision mechanisms.

Q&A Highlights (Main Points)

Q1: Procedural vs Substantive Justice—Is There a Fundamental Difference?

The response (summarized) emphasizes:

Substantive justice: realized at the earliest possible stage, ensuring the process reflects substantive law/its meaning.
Procedural justice: focused on preparing/obeying procedures; but if evidence/substantive elements aren’t properly addressed, procedure becomes “just procedure.”

The speaker also notes a “justice deficit” risk when suspect determination/detention occurs without adequate access to substantive challenge.

Q2: How Do Multiple Interpretations Affect Decision-Making?

The theme is that ambiguous provisions or differing interpretations can undermine uniform substantive justice.

Q3: When a Victim’s Self-Defense Leads to Being Treated as a Suspect

The response focuses on:

legal qualification and interpretation by investigators/law enforcers,
the need for coordination between investigators and prosecutors,
the importance of documentation.

It suggests substantive legal judgment requires law-trained roles at key decision stages.

Q4: Administrative Chaos / Norm Conflicts in KUAP Transition—What Should Be Done?

The speaker’s focus includes:

balancing justice with early substantive scrutiny,
documentation and adaptive improvement rather than strict postponement.

He argues the system should be improved iteratively rather than assuming laws can be held back indefinitely.

Q5: Restorative Justice (RJ) and “Partial RJ”

Clarifications:

RJ is governed by KUAP, not KUHP.
Some “partial RJ” models may occur without direct contact with law enforcement and the judiciary, potentially through community-level dispute settlement.
The relationship between customary mechanisms and formal criminal justice should be integrated so that once resolved (customary/court-recognized), the matter shouldn’t necessarily continue into general criminal processing.

Q6: Why Was KUAP/KUHPP Passed Despite Criticism and Unclear Parts?

The speaker explains:

timelines and necessity due to the effective date,
legislative process constraints (needed alignment for implementation by Jan 2, 2026),
general recognition that laws may be imperfect but must improve through practice and review.

Closing Principle Emphasized by the Speaker

“Return to principles, not just text/norm articles.”
Distinguishing law in books, law in action, and law in ideas, with the goal of bringing ideal principles closer to real practice.

Detailed Operational/Instruction-Style Elements Mentioned

How to anticipate disputes and protect fairness (documentation approach)
- Document incidents using:
  - written records,
  - videos/photos,
  - cellphone/CCTV/digital evidence where possible.
- Documentation is presented as the easiest way to verify the real timeline and reduce conflict caused by competing narratives.
How to respond to transition implementation gaps
- Don’t postpone indefinitely; apply rules as far as possible and improve iteratively.
- Fill normative gaps through:
  - theorization work,
  - adaptation by lecturers/practitioners, and
  - judicial review processes.
How to understand/position restorative justice (RJ) correctly
- RJ does not always need to occur strictly within formal criminal procedure stages.
- Recognize RJ concepts that can occur outside formal proceedings (e.g., community/customary resolution), then ensure the effect on progression into the criminal justice process is correctly understood.

Speakers / Sources Featured

Putra N Kurniawan — MC / Master of Ceremonies
Mrs. Dinda Riskanita, S.H., M.H. — Head of the Distance Learning (PJJ) Law S1 Program
Dr. Khairul Huda, S.H., M.H. — Resource person / speaker (criminal law expert)
Muhammad Rizal, S.H., M.H., CSA (C.VLS mentioned in subtitles) — Moderator

Q&A participants (as identified in subtitles)

Dedi Azhari — student question (procedural vs substantive; multiple interpretations)
Anisa (listed as “Ms. Anisa”) — referenced in discussion
Moris (“Mr. Moris”) — student question related to self-defense becoming a suspect
A Zoom chat participant (unnamed) — question about administrative chaos/norm conflicts

External authority mentioned

Late Professor Muladi — cited regarding the nature of special crimes (“very evil” / “super mala perserse” phrasing, as shown in subtitles)

Kuliah Umum PJJ Hukum : Tantangan KUHP di Masa Transisi: Keadilan Prosedural vs Substantif

Key takeaways