A Guide to Implement the 2023 Criminal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedural Code Under the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 1 of 2026

Indonesia’s criminal law landscape is entering a new era with the implementation of the 2023 Criminal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedural Code. To ensure consistent application of these new provisions, the Supreme Court issued Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026 as an important Litigation Law guideline for judges, prosecutors, and legal practitioners.

The dynamics of law enforcement and the need for legal certainty often encourage the Supreme Court to issue guidelines to support the implementation of laws and regulations. One concrete example of this is the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026 on the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 2023 Criminal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedural Code (“Circular 1/2026”) which aims to ensure the smooth implementation of the judiciary and avoid multiple interpretations of the norms regulated under Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code as amended by Law Number 1 of 2026 concerning the Adjustment of Criminal Sanctions (“Criminal Code 2023”) and Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedural Code (“Criminal Procedural Code 2025”).

This article will discuss the provisions outlined in SEMA 1/2026, which has a focus on providing guidance for the implementation of the Criminal Code 2023 and Criminal Procedural Code 2025.

As stated earlier, Circular 1/2026 contains 2 (two) main focuses, namely the implementation of Criminal Code 2023 and the implementation of Criminal Procedural Code 2025. Circular 1/2026 discusses the implementation of Criminal Code 2023 in 3 (three) parts, namely:

1. Guidelines for the implementation of Article 3 of Criminal Code 2023 on the provisions for the transition process to the new criminal law;
2. Alternative editorial of the verdict; and
3. The structure of considerations in the decision, containing sentencing guidelines and the element of culpability.

Furthermore, the discussion on the implementation of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 is divided into two (2) parts, namely:

1. Guidelines for the implementation of Article 361 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 on transitional provisions upon the enactment of Criminal Procedural Code 2025; and
2. New criminal procedural law.

Implementation of Criminal Code 2023

Guidelines for the Implementation of Article 3 of Criminal Code 2023 on the Provisions for the Transition Process to the New Criminal Law

In this section, Circular 1/2026 provides guidelines for the implementation of the provisions of Article 3 of Criminal Code 2023 paragraph by paragraph. First, with regard to Article 3 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code 2023, which stipulates:

“In the event that there is a change in statutory regulations after an act has been committed, the new statutory regulations shall apply, unless the provisions of the previous statutory regulations are more favorable to the perpetrator and the accomplice to the criminal offense.”

Circular 1/2026 provides guidelines that in the event the trial has commenced and the indictment still uses the provisions of the old criminal provisions, the evidentiary process shall be conducted based on the new criminal provisions, unless the old criminal provisions are more favorable to the defendant than the new ones.

Read Also: The Settlement Procedure of Simple Claim

Further, Article 3 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code 2023 states:

Paragraph (2)

“In the event that the act committed no longer constitutes a criminal offense under the new legislation, the legal proceedings against the suspect or the defendant shall be terminated by law.”

Paragraph (3)

“In the event that the provision as referred to in paragraph (2) are applied to a suspect or defendant who is under detention, the suspect or defendant shall be released by the relevant authority in accordance with the stage of examination.”

Circular 1/2026 provides clear guidelines for the termination of the legal proceedings and the release of suspects or defendants in detention, whereby the judge shall issue a ruling that at least contains the following:

1. Declaring that the act committed by the defendant does not constitute a criminal offense;
2. Declaring that the legal proceedings are terminated by law;
3. Ordering the release of the defendant from detention if the defendant is detained;
4. Determining the status of evidence (if any); and
5. Imposing the costs of the case on the state.

Furthermore, Article 3 paragraphs (4), (5), and (7) of the Criminal Code 2023 provides that if, after a final and binding decision, an act is no longer classified as a criminal offense under the new legislation, the execution of the sentence shall be revoked and the convicted person shall be immediately released from prison by the head of the correctional institution. Meanwhile, if the act remains a criminal offense but is punishable by a lighter penalty, the execution of the criminal sentence must be adjusted to the criminal provisions in the new legislation. Circular 1/2026 also explains that in the event of the circumstances referred to in Article 3 paragraphs (4), (5), and (7) of Criminal Code 2023, the court shall not issue a ruling, as this is the authority of other competent agencies or officials.

Alternative Editorial of the Verdict

Section II number 2 of the Appendix Circular 1/2026 regulates the alternative editorial of the verdicts, including verdicts for:

1. criminal fines;
2. probationary punishment;
3. community service punishment;
4. judicial pardon decisions; and
5. criminal sentences and measures imposed on corporate (as a legal subject).

Structure of Considerations in the Decision, Containing Sentencing Guidelines and the Element of Culpability

Circular 1/2026 provides guidelines that considerations regarding the severity of sentencing shall be placed after the statement that the defendant’s guilt has been proven. Furthermore, Article 54 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code 2023 stipulates that, in sentencing, 11 (eleven) aspects must be taken into consideration, including:

1. The form of the perpetrators’ criminal acts;
2. The motive and objectives of committing the crime;
3. The perpetrator’s state of mind;
4. Whether the crime was planned or unplanned;
5. The manner in which the crime was committed;
6. The attitude and actions of the perpetrator after committing the crime;
7. The life history, social circumstances, and economic circumstances of the perpetrator of the crime;
8. The impact of the sentence on the future of the perpetrator;
9. The impact of the crime on the victim or the victim’s family;
10. Forgiveness from the victim and/or the victim’s family; and/or
11. Legal values and a sense of justice that live within society.

Circular 1/2026 explains that the 11 (eleven) aspects above must be considered, whether alternative or cumulative, and such aspects shall be reflected in the judgment by placing them under mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The provisions of Article 54 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code 2023 are not limitative, meaning that judges may add other considerations, and non-fulfillment of the entirety of the requirements under Article 54 paragraph (1) a quo does not result in the decision being null and void. Furthermore, it is also emphasized that judges must consider the elements of intent and/or negligence as stipulated under Criminal Code 2023.

Implementation of Criminal Procedural Code 2025

Guidelines for the Implementation of Article 361 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 on Transitional Provisions upon the Enactment of Criminal Procedural Code 2025

SEMA 1/2026 explains two points regarding the implementation of Article 361 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025, namely:

1. Criminal cases that have been brought to court and have already begun the examination process shall be examined, tried, and decided based on the provisions of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as “Former Criminal Procedural Law”), including provisions on detention authority with due regard to the subjective and objective requirements of the article charged.
2. Criminal cases that have been transferred to court but the examination process of the defendant has not yet begun shall be examined, tried, and decided based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code 2025. The examination process of the defendant is a trial that examines the identity of the defendant.

New Procedural Law

The new procedural law section contained in SEMA 1/2026, does not necessarily create new formal law, but rather refers to a new mechanism for proceedings as regulated under Criminal Procedural Code 2025. There are five (5) key areas of reform under Criminal Procedural Code 2025, namely:

1. Searches and seizures;
2. Restorative justice mechanism;
3. Plea bargain;
4. Hearing for the examination of a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA Hearing”) under Article 328 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025; and
5. Legal remedies against a release from all criminal charges decision.

Searches and Seizures

SEMA 1/2026 explains that the granting of search and seizure warrants and the approval or rejection of searches and seizures are carried out through a decree by a judge or chief or head of court in accordance with the provisions of KUHAP 2025. Criminal Procedural Code 2025 has stipulated that, in order to carry out a search or seizure, requires an authorization and approval from the head of the district court as regulated under Article 113 and Article 119 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025, and that any refusal of a search must be accompanied by reasoning ground from the head of the district court, as provided under Article 121 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025. Based on the foregoing, it can be understood that Circular 1/2026 merely reaffirms that authorization for searches and seizures must be carried out through a decree issued by the head of the district court, rather than adding provisions related to searches or seizures.

Restorative Justice Mechanism

Restorative justice is an approach to handling criminal cases that involves the parties with the aim of seeking restoration to the original condition. Criminal Procedural Code 2025 sets out the Restorative Justice Mechanism (“RJM”) in detail under Chapter IV, commencing from Article 79 through Article 88, and not only in Criminal Procedural Code 2025, Circular 1/2026 also provides guidelines for the implementation of the RJM.

RJM is carried out to restore the state to its original condition, in the form of:

1. Forgiveness from the victim and/or the victim’s family;
2. Return of property obtained from the criminal offense to the victim;
3. Reimbursement of medical and/or psychological treatment costs;
4. Compensation for other losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal offense experienced by the victim;
5. Repair of damage caused as a result of the criminal offense experienced by the victim; or
6. Payment of compensation for damages caused by the criminal offense.

The restoration, as referred to above, must be set forth in an agreement that shall be implemented within a maximum period of 7 (seven) calendar days. The withdrawal of a report or complaint may only be carried out if the perpetrator has fulfilled the terms of the agreement as explained above. Furthermore, upon completion of said agreement, the case must be terminated, and a court determination must be requested, which is submitted to the head of the district court in accordance with the jurisdiction where the case is handled.

Read Also: Corporation as Subject of Criminal Offense

In the event that the agreement is not implemented by the deadline, namely 7 (seven) calendar days, the investigator is required to prepare minutes of the RJM implementation containing:

1. The identities of the parties;
2. The contents of the agreement;
3. Evidence of partial or full implementation of the agreement; and
4. Reasons for the perpetrator’s non-compliance with the agreement.

RJM may only be applied to criminal offenses that meet the following requirements:

1. The criminal offense is punishable only by a fine of no more than category III or in the amount of Rp50.000.000,00 (fifty million Rupiah), or is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years, including offenses punishable by 5 (five) years of imprisonment;
2. The criminal offense is committed for the first time; and/or
3. It is not a repeat offense, except for criminal offenses for which judgments impose a fine or for criminal offenses committed due to negligence.

For criminal offenses that do not yet meet the above requirements, RJM may be carried out at the initial investigation stage in the form of a settlement agreement between the perpetrator and the victim.

RJM may be carried out through an application by the perpetrator of the criminal offense or his or her family, the suspect, the defendant, the victim, or the victim’s family. It may also be offered by the initial investigator, investigator, public prosecutor, or judge to the victim or the perpetrator, suspect, or defendant. It shall be emphasized that any such application must be made without pressure, coercion, intimidation, deception, threats of violence, torture, or actions of a degrading dignity against the suspect, defendant, victim, and/or their families.

RJM is excluded for:

1. Criminal offenses against state security, friendly states, the heads of friendly states and their representatives, as well as criminal offenses against public order and morality;
2. Terrorism offenses;
3. Corruption offenses;
4. Sexual violence offenses;
5. Offenses against human life;
6. Criminal offenses subject to minimum penalties;
7. Certain criminal offenses that are highly dangerous or harmful to society; and/or
8. Narcotics offenses, except those involving users or abusers.

It should be understood that RJM is implemented at the stages of initial investigation, investigation, prosecution, and examination in court hearings. However, SEMA 1/2026 only provides guidelines for RJM at the initial investigation, investigation, and prosecution stages.

Restorative Justice Mechanism at the Initial Investigation, Investigation, and Prosecution Stages

RJM at this stage is carried out through an agreement to resolve the case before the initial investigator, investigator, or public prosecutor, as evidenced by a written agreement. Based on such agreement, the investigator will issue an order for the termination of the investigation, which must be submitted for a court determination to the head of the district court within a maximum period of 3 (three) business days from the receipt of the application.

The application for a determination of the termination order of investigation or prosecution shall be accompanied at least by:

1. Settlement agreement signed by the suspect, the victim, and the investigator;
2. A termination order of the investigation; and
3. Evidence of full implementation of the agreement.

Matters to be examined in the termination order of investigation or prosecution include:

1. Conformity of the fulfillment of the agreement with the provisions of Criminal Procedural Code 2025;
2. Fulfillment of the requirements for RJM; and
3. Fulfillment of the exclusions for criminal offenses that cannot be resolved through RJM.

If the application for determination does not meet the requirements, the head of the district court shall issue a determination to return the case file; conversely, if it meets the requirements, the head of the district court shall declare the order for termination of investigation or prosecution to be valid. The determination shall be submitted to the public prosecutor within a maximum period of 3 (three) days from the date it is issued.

Plea Bargain

Circular 1/2026 explains the guidelines for plea bargain as stipulated in 3 (three) articles of Criminal Procedural Code 2025, namely Article 78 concerning plea bargain prior to the trial, Article 205 concerning plea bargain when the defendant and the victim do not agree to reach a settlement at the beginning of the trial, and Article 234 concerning plea bargain by the defendant upon the reading of the indictment by the public prosecutor.

Guidelines on Plea Bargain Prior to the Trial (Article 78 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025)

Plea Bargain is a legal mechanism for a defendant to admit their guilt in a criminal offense and to cooperate in the examination by submitting evidence supporting such admission in exchange for a punishment reduction. To apply a plea bargain, certain requirements must be met, including:

1. The criminal offense is committed for the first time;
2. The criminal offense is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years, or a fine of no more than category V or equivalent to Rp500.000.000,00 (five hundred million Rupiah); and/or
3. Willingness to pay compensation or restitution.

Plea bargain mechanism begins with the public prosecutor asking the defendant, together with their attorney, whether the defendant is guilty or not. If the defendant admits guilt, then, accompanied by their attorney, such admission is stated in the minutes of examination. After the public prosecutor submits an application for plea bargain, the head of district court appoints a sole judge to conduct a specific hearing before the trial on the subject matter begins. The judge sets the hearing date no later than 3 (three) calendar days after the appointment of the judge. On the hearing date, the public prosecutor presents the defendant and their attorney, and if the plea bargain is agreed, an agreement is made by the public prosecutor and the defendant with the approval of the judge.

The written agreement of the above settlement must contain the following:

1. Statement that the defendant understands the consequences of their plea bargain, including the waiver of their right to remain silent and their right to be tried under ordinary proceedings;
2. The plea is made voluntarily;
3. The article charged and the criminal sanction to be sought against the defendant prior to a plea bargain;
4. The results of the negotiations between the public prosecutor, the defendant, and the attorney, including the reasons for the reduction of the defendant’s sentence;
5. Statement that the plea bargain agreement is binding upon the parties who agree to it and is enforceable as law; and
6. Evidence of the commission of the criminal offense by the defendant to ensure that the defendant committed the criminal offense.

The judge shall assess the entire plea bargain application to determine whether it complies with the procedures above. The judge is also required to assess whether plea bargain is made voluntarily, without coercion, and with full understanding by the defendant. The maximum period for the judge to issue a determination is 7 (seven) business days from the specific hearing for the plea bargain. If the judge accepts plea bargain, the hearing shall proceed with a summary examination, with the verdict as follows:

1. Accepting the defendant’s plea bargain;
2. Ordering the public prosecutor to transfer the case under the brief examination proceedings.

If the judge rejects plea bargain, the case shall proceed under the ordinary examination procedure, with the verdict as follows:

1. Rejecting the defendant’s plea bargain;
2. Ordering the public prosecutor to transfer the case under the ordinary examination proceedings.

Guidelines on Plea Bargain under Conditions Where the Defendant and the Victim Do Not Reach a Settlement at the Beginning of the Trial (Article 205 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025)

In a criminal case, if the defendant and the victim do not agree to enter into a settlement, the judge shall ask whether the defendant is willing to admit the charges brought by the public prosecutor. If the defendant does not admit the charged act against them, the judge shall proceed the case under the ordinary examination procedure. Nevertheless, if the defendant admits the charges, the judge is required to examine such admission by taking into account the following:

1. The defendant has been examined at the investigation stage;
2. The defendant was accompanied by an attorney during the examination at the investigation stage;
3. The examination at the investigation stage was conducted in a proper manner and within a reasonable time;
4. The defendant has been informed of and was able to exercise their rights during the investigation and prosecution;
5. The defendant’s admission was not caused by pressure, coercion, and/or torture, whether physical or psychological, during the investigation and prosecution process; and
6. Other matters deemed necessary by the judge.

If the judge has examined the matter and the above considerations are fulfilled, then:

1. The examination shifts to a brief examination proceeding and is recorded in the minutes of the hearing, and the other panel of judges, by virtue of their positions, become a sole judge to continue, examine, and decide the case under the brief examination proceeding;
2. The sentence imposed shall be a maximum of 3 (three) years imprisonment in accordance with Article 257 paragraph (5) of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 concerning the brief examination proceeding;
3. The detention of the defendant in an ordinary examination proceeding may still be continued with a brief examination proceeding unless the sole judge decides otherwise; and
4. The case number shall remain in the ordinary examination register.

Guidelines for Plea Bargain by the Defendant Upon the Reading of Indictment by the Public Prosecutor (Article 234 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025)

A plea bargain may also occur when the public prosecutor reads out the indictment and the defendant admits all of the acts charged and pleads guilty. In such circumstances, the judge orders the defendant and the public prosecutor to sign the minutes of the plea bargain. In this event, the judge is also required to:

1. inform the defendant of the rights waived by giving such admission, which shall also be stated in the minutes of the plea bargain;
2. inform the defendant of the length of the sentence that may be imposed; and
3. ask whether the plea bargain is given voluntarily.

Plea bargain under Article 234 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 may only be applied to criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 5 (five) years up to 7 (seven) years.

Where the panel of judges accepts the plea bargain, then:

1. The examination of the case shall be converted into a brief examination proceeding and recorded in the minutes of hearing, and the other judge, by virtue of their position, shall act as a sole judge to continue, examine, and adjudicate the case under the brief examination proceeding;
2. The sentence imposed shall not exceed two-thirds (2/3) of the maximum statutory penalty of the criminal offense charged;
3. The detention of the defendant in an ordinary examination proceeding may still be continued with a brief examination proceeding unless the sole judge decides otherwise; and
4. The case number shall remain in the ordinary examination register.

Hearing on the Examination of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement under Article 328 of Criminal Procedural Code 2025

A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) is a legal mechanism for the public prosecutor to postpone the prosecution of a defendant where the perpetrator is a corporation. In order to defer prosecution, an application for a DPA may be submitted by the suspect, the defendant, or their attorney to the public prosecutor prior to the submission of the case to the court. The conditions set out in a DPA may include:

1. Payment of compensation or restitution to the victim;

1. Implementation of a legal compliance program or improvement of anti-corruption corporate governance;
2. Obligation to report and cooperate with law enforcement during the deferral prosecution process; or
3. Other corrective measures deemed necessary by the public prosecutor.

Where the public prosecutor accepts the application, the DPA shall be submitted by the public prosecutor to the court no later than 7 (seven) calendar days after the agreement is signed by the parties. Subsequently, the head of the district court shall appoint a sole judge to conduct the DPA Hearing, and such judge shall determine the hearing date no later than 3 (three) calendar days after the appointment of the judge.

At the DPA Hearing, the public prosecutor shall bring the suspect or the defendant before the court, and the judge may order the public prosecutor to summon other interested parties to attend the hearing. If the judge approves the DPA application, such approval shall be set forth in a court order, and the prosecution of the case shall be deferred in accordance with the agreement, with the verdict as follows:

1. Approving the DPA;
2. Deferring the prosecution of the case for a specified period of time as stipulated in the DPA.

If the suspect or defendant fulfills all obligations under the DPA during the specified period, the case may be dismissed without further prosecution as determined by court order.

However, where the judge rejects the DPA application, the case shall proceed under the ordinary proceeding, with the following verdict:

1. Reject the DPA;
2. Order the public prosecutor to proceed with the case under the ordinary proceedings.

Legal Remedies Against a Release from All Criminal Charges Decision

SEMA 1/2026 explains that appeals and cassation may be filed against a release from all criminal charges decision (hereinafter referred to as “Release Decision”) in a gradual manner.

Furthermore, on the next point, SEMA 1/2026 explains as follows:

“Appeal against Release Decision based on the provisions of Article 244 paragraph (5) of Criminal Procedural Code 2025”

Article 244 paragraph (5) of Criminal Procedural Code 2025 reads as follows:

“In the event that the defendant is released from all charges as referred to in paragraph (3) and the public prosecutor does not file an appeal, the defendant who is detained shall be released from detention as soon as the verdict is issued”.

It is a significant change, given that under the Former Criminal Procedural Code, a Release Decision could not be appealed and was subject only to cassation proceedings as stipulated under Article 67 jo. Article 244 of Former Criminal Procedural Code. In this case, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court intends to emphasize that under the new criminal procedural regime, Release Decisions are open to appeal as stipulated in the first point, which explains that Release Decisions can be appealed and cassated in a gradual manner, while also emphasizing the obligation to release the defendant from detention if the public prosecutor does not file an appeal against the Release Decision in question.

Furthermore, on the last point, SEMA 1/2026 explains that cassation can be filed against a Release Decision since Release Decisions are not included in the category of decisions that are prohibited from being cassated as stipulated in Article 299 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code 2025. This reaffirms the first point whereby Release Decisions can be appealed and cassated in a gradual manner.

Closing

Circular 1/2026 essentially serves as a guideline to maintain consistency and prevent multiple interpretations in the application of several provisions of the Criminal Code 2023 and the Criminal Procedural Code 2025 in the criminal judiciary. Considering that both laws introduce various new regulations, the presence of Circular 1/2026 is important to ensure certainty in the application of said laws during the transitional period from the old legal regime to the new ones.

---

Author

---

Editor

---

---

Source:

• Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code as amended by Law Number 1 of 2026 concerning the Adjustment of Criminal Sanctions
• Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code
• Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026 on the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 2023 Criminal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code