Pretrial proceedings are a key mechanism in Indonesia’s criminal justice system to asses the legality of actions taken by law enforcement authorities, particularly in the use of coercive measures. In practice, this mechanism serves as an initial safeguard against potential abuse of authority during the investigation stage. Conceptually, pretrial proceedings refer to the authority of the District Court to examine and decide on applications submitted by suspects, victims, or other interested parties regarding actions taken by law enforcement during the investigation and prosecution stages.
Pretrial proceedings were first introduced under Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (“KUHAP 1981”). Under KUHAP 1981, the scope of pretrial was defined narrowly, covering only:
- The legality of arrest and/or detention;
- The legality of the termination of investigation or prosecution; and
- Requests for compensation or rehabilitation for parties whose cases are not brought before the court.
As judicial practice developed, these provisions were no longer considered sufficient, especially in addressing actions taken at the early stages of investigation. This limitation was addressed through judicial developments, most notably Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 dated 28 April 2015 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUU-IX/2011 dated 1 May 2012, which expanded the scope of pretrial to include:
- The legality of suspect designation;
- The legality of searches; and
- The legality of seizures.
In practice, this expansion functioned as a modification of KUHAP 1981, although was not formally codified in statutory law. The need for legal certainty was subsequently addressed through Law Number 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure (“KUHAP 2025”), which came into force on 2 January 2026.
KUHAP 2025 fundamentally changes the approach to regulating pretrial proceedings. The legislature not only adopts developments arising from court ruling but also expands the scope of pretrial in a more comprehensive manner. The scope of pretrial under KUHAP 2025 includes:
- The legality of the implementation of coercive measures;
- The legality of the termination of investigation or prosecution;
- Requests for compensation and/or rehabilitation;
- The seizure of property or goods that are not related to a criminal offense;
- Unjustified delays in the case handling; and
- The suspension or interruption of detention.
This expansion reflects a shift in the function of pretrial proceedings from a corrective mechanism to a broader supervisory tool aimed at preventing potential abuse of authority. In addition, KUHAP 2025 introduce clearer the procedural aspects of filing and examining pretrial applications. Under Article 160 of KUHAP 2025, an application to challenge the legality of coercive measures may only be submitted once for the same object (the one shot principle). This provision limits repeated applications and requires a well-prepared pretrial strategy from the outset.
Under KUHAP 2025, coercive measures are defined as actions taken by law enforcement authorities within the criminal justice process. Furthermore, Article 89 of KUHAP 2025 specifies the types of coercive measures by enumerating the relevants actions, thereby providing greater clarity and legal certainty in their implementation, namely:
- Suspect designation;
- Arrest;
- Search;
- Seizure;
- Examination of documents;
- Interception;
- Blocking; and
- Travel restrictions for suspects or defendants.
This comprehensive formulation establish a clearer standardization of coercive measures, and expands the scope of review through pretrial mechanisms. KUHAP 2025 also incorporates developments from judicial ruling, as reflected in Article 158 (a), which grants the District Court the authority to examine and decide on the legality of coercive measures. This provision ensures that all forms of coercive measures are now placed within a more structured framework of judicial oversight.
Furthermore, KUHAP 2025 provides clarity on who may file a pretrial application, depending on the object being challenged. Under Article 160 (2) of KUHAP 2025, an application concerning the seizure of property or goods that are not related to a criminal offense may be filed by an interested third party. Meanwhile, under Article 161 of KUHAP 2025, an application to challenge the legality of the termination of an investigation or prosecution may be submitted by the victim, the reporting party, or their legal counsel. Furthermore, requests for compensation and/or rehabilitation arising from such unlawful termination may be filed by the victim or the reporting party, as provided under Article 162 of KUHAP 2025.
In terms of timing, KUHAP 2025 maintains the seven-day time limit for pretrial examination, but clarifies that the calculation begins from the moment the application is read, as provided under Article 163 (1)(c) of KUHAP 2025. This provides greater legal certainty compared to KUHAP 1981, which did not clearly determine the starting point of the time calculation.
In addition, KUHAP 2025 further stipulates that the examination of the main case cannot proceed while pretrial proceedings are ongoing. This reinforces the role of pretrial as a gatekeeping mechanism that must be resolved before the court examines the merits of the case.
Conclusion
KUHAP 2025 marks a significant strengthening of pretrial proceedings as a control mechanism within Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Unlike KUHAP 1981, which relied heavily on judicial developments, the provisions under KUHAP 2025 codified these developments explicitly, providing greater legal certainty while enhancing the protection of fundamental rights.
In practice, these changes require a more proactive approach from both individuals and corporations. Any coercive measures should be assessed promptly from a legal perspective, particularly given the limitation that pretrial applications may only be filed once. At the same time, third parties with an interest in seized assets now have a stronger legal basis to protect their rights. Therefore, timely, well-measured, and evidence-based action is therefore essential to mitigate legal risks from the early stages of the criminal process.
Disclaimer
This article provides an analysis of the development and regulation of pretrial proceedings under the Indonesian criminal procedure system, particularly following the enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure, with a focus on the expansion of pretrial scope and its implications for judicial oversight and the protection of human rights. This article is prepared solely for informational and academic purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised not to act or rely solely upon the information contained herein without first obtaining appropriate professional legal advice. Laws and regulations, as well as their interpretation, may change over time, and their application may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. For specific legal advice or further clarification regarding the matters discussed in this article, consultation with a competent legal advisor is recommended.