Synchronization of the 2025 Criminal Prosedur Code Draft With the National Criminal Code: A Review of Obstacles, Gaps, and the Ultimum Remedium Principle

The enactment of the 2022 Criminal Code (KUHP) marks a milestone in reforming Indonesia’s national law, replacing the Dutch colonial legacy that has prevailed for over a century. Nevertheless, its effectiveness depends on the existence of procedural law as an implementing instrument, namely the 2025 Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP), which is currently under discussion. Synchronization between the KUHP and the RKUHAP is essential since substantive and procedural law form a unified criminal law system. This study aims to analyze the synchronization of the 2025 RKUHAP with the KUHP, focusing on obstacles, normative inconsistencies, and the application of the principle of ultimum remedium. The method employed is normative juridical legal research with legislative, conceptual, and comparative approaches, complemented by case analysis. Research data consist of primary legal materials (KUHP, RKUHAP, and related regulations), secondary materials from academic literature, and tertiary supporting materials. The analysis is conducted qualitatively by identifying and interpreting norms, then testing them against doctrines and criminal law principles. Findings reveal three issues: obstacles from overlapping articles and different orientations, with RKUHAP remaining retributive while KUHP embraces restorative justice; normative inconsistencies in detention provisions that risk violating legality and fair trial principles; and inadequate reflection of ultimum remedium since minor and administrative offenses still tend toward criminalization. The study concludes that without proper synchronization, risks of legal disharmony and excessive criminalization may emerge, undermining human rights protection. Therefore, ultimum remedium must serve as the guiding principle in drafting the 2025 RKUHAP to ensure a fair, modern, and rights-oriented criminal law system in Indonesia.

1. Anderson, M. (2021). Restorative justice in comparative criminal law. International Journal of Law and Society, 8(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.2021.0802.005
2. Hidayat, A. (2022). Obstacles to the implementation of the RKUHAP in the criminal justice system. Journal of Law Ius Quia Iustum, 29(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art5
3. Makwakwa, L., & Ndlovu, T. (2023). Harmonization of criminal procedure and substantive law in civil law countries. Journal of Comparative Criminal Justice, 44(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221149210
4. Ningrum, A., & Rafsanjani, B. (2024). Synchronization challenges between Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code in Indonesia. Journal of Legal Studies, 19(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.22146/jls.2024.88
5. Prasetyo, A. (2023). Critical analysis of the RKUHAP: Between updates and insynchronization with the Criminal Code. Constitutional Journal, 20(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2023.20.2.210
6. Ramadhan, F. (2024). Restorative justice in the new Criminal Code: Implications for the 2025 RKUP. Indonesian Journal of Legislation, 21(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.31002/jli.v21i1.2024
7. Santia, D., & Handayani, P. (2023). Ultimum remedium and human rights in criminal law. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Reform, 5(2), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijclr.v5i2.2023
8. Siregar, D. (2025). Ultimum remedium as a principle of protection of human rights in criminal law. Journal of Human Rights, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.25041/jham.2025.001
9. Sutiyoso, B. (2023). Criminal law reform and the challenge of synchronizing the Criminal Code with the criminal procedure law. Journal of Law and Justice, 12(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.25041/jhp.2023.145
10. Utami, R. (2021). The incompatibility of the principle of ultimum remedium in the practice of criminal procedure law. Journal of De Jure Legal Research, 21(4), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2021.v21.567-580
11. Wicaksono, R., & Yulianto, A. (2020). Criminal policy reform in Indonesia: Between restorative justice and penal populism. Asian Journal of Criminology, 15(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-020-09328-9
12. Rahman, M. F. (2022). The principle of legality and criminal law reform in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law, 9(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.31078/ijicl.2022.9.2.122
13. Nugroho, B., & Pratiwi, L. (2021). Legal certainty in the new Indonesian Criminal Code. Journal of Legal Reform, 7(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JLR-09-2021-112
14. Kurniawan, A. (2023). Penal reform and the principle of ultimum remedium in Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 54(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002246342300011X
15. Wijayanti, D. (2024). Procedural justice and criminal law reform in Indonesia. Journal of Law & Development, 54(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol54.no1.2024
16. Tan, C. H. (2022). Criminal justice and human rights in ASEAN legal systems. Asia-Pacific Law Review, 30(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2131557
17. Susanto, H., & Lestari, E. (2025). Harmonization of the Criminal Code and RKUHAP: An urgent need. Indonesian Journal of Law, 32(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.31078/jihi.2025.32.1.55
18. Putri, A. (2023). The politics of criminal law reform in Indonesia. Indonesia Law Review, 13(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v13n3.2023.301
19. Budiman, S. (2020). Criminal procedure reforms in comparative perspective. Journal of Law & Policy, 18(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/lwp.2020.88
20. Zhang, Y. (2021). Restorative justice and criminal procedure in Asia: A comparative study. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 8(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2021.5