Integrated-Progressive Judicial Control Model: Balancing Ius Puniendi and Individual Protection in 2026 Criminal Procedure Code

Agung Prayuda Yahya, Lisnawaty W. Badu, Farisandy R. Baeda

Abstract


The enactment of the 2026 Criminal Procedure Code introduces expanded judicial control over coercive measures, yet its compatibility with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture remains contested. This study examines the tension between state authority and individual protection and formulates an Integrated-Progressive Judicial Control Model to reconcile these competing imperatives. Employing a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the analysis draws on German and Canadian judicial control models. The study finds that while the new code advances judicial authorization and the exclusionary rule, critical deficiencies persist, including the absence of mandatory presentation of detainees before a judge within forty-eight hours, limited substantive pretrial review, and the failure to regulate derivative evidence. The proposed model integrates judicial oversight across all stages of the criminal process and progressively incorporates substantive fairness and restorative justice. Its five components preventive authorization, mandatory presentation, substantive pretrial review, derivative evidence exclusion, and integrated restorative justice are designed for incremental implementation through a pilot project. The study concludes that full compatibility requires legislative refinement and a judicial culture that takes procedural rights seriously, offering a practical pathway for aligning criminal procedure with international human rights standards while preserving legitimate state authority.

Keywords


Criminal Procedure; Judicial Control; Human Rights; Balanced Antinomy; Restorative Justice

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abidin, Zainal. “Inkorporasi Hak-Hak Fair Trial dalam Rancangan Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.” Jurnal Hak Asasi Manusia 15, no. 1 (July 2022): 44–69. https://doi.org/10.58823/jham.v15i1.117.

Adam, Angelika Permata, Arif Mahfudin Ibrahim, Tri Mega Putri Aruan, Nazwa Tolingguhu, Reza Al’ Asfah, Tri Meutia Nur Auliya Palahuwata, Arini Labaka, and Hilal Perdana Maini. “Penerapan Asas Due Process of Law Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Bisnis (J-KUMBIS) 4, no. 1 (January 2026): 16–27. https://doi.org/10.37606/j-kumbis.v4i1.408.

Afandi, Fachrizal, and Ladito Risang Bagaskoro. “Judicial Scrutiny Under Indonesia’s KUHAP 2025: Transplantation and Institutional Incoherence.” Brawijaya Law Journal 13, no. 1 (July 2026): 25–57. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2026.013.01.02.

Apripari, Dian Ekawaty Ismail, Ahmad, Vivi Oktaviani Pulukadang, and Novendri M. Nggilu. “Restorative justice in victimless crimes under the criminal procedure code: Problematics and solutions.” Jurnal Hukum Novelty (1412-6834) 17, no. 1 (January 2026): 144.

Aulia, Salwa, and Wevy Efticha Sary. “Seizure As A Coercive Measure In A Comparison Of Criminal Procedural Law Between Indonesia And France.” University Of Bengkulu Law Journal 10, no. 2 (November 2025): 170–90. https://doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.v10i2.46708.

Austin, Lisa M., and Andrea Slane. “Digitally Rethinking Hunter v Southam.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 60 (2023): 419.

Azza, Naila Meuthia. “Criminal Law Policy and Human Rights Protection: Analyzing the Rationalization of the New Indonesian Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.” Punggawa Law Review 1, no. 4 (September 2026): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.67707/plr.v1i4.61.

Butar-butar, Elisabeth Nurhaini. “Antinomi Dalam Penerapan Asas Legalitas Dalam Proses Penemuan Hukum.” Yustisia 1, no. 1 (January 2012). https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v1i1.10614.

Gani, Andika Wahyudi, and Nurul Maghfirah Surianto. “When Restorative Justice Becomes Case Negotiation: Legal Validity and Normative Distortion in Criminal Justice.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 55, no. 1 (March 2026): 171–96. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.55.1.2026.171-196.

Joseph, Sarah. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.

Langbein, John H. “The Turn to Confession Bargaining in German Criminal Procedure: Causes and Comparisons with American Plea Bargaining.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 70, no. 1 (March 2022): 139–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac025.

McKay, Robert B. “Mapp v. Ohio, the Exclusionary Rule and the Right of Privacy.” Arizona Law Review 15 (1973): 327.

Packer, Herbert L. “Two Models of the Criminal Process.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 113 (1965 1964): 1.

Praswahyu, Rio, M. Syahrul Borman, and Moh Taufik. “Fungsi Bantuan Hukum Dan Perlindungan Hak Tersangka Dalam Proses Penyidikan.” PESHUM: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial Dan Humaniora 5, no. 3 (2026): 6448–56.

Prawira, M. Rizki Yudha. “Regulation Act of Torture in Criminal Code: Opportunity and Challenge to Improve Human Rights Situation in Indonesia.” JUSTISI 11, no. 1 (2025): 17–35. https://doi.org/10.33506/js.v11i1.3653.

Pulungan, Muh Hajoran, and Mosgan Situmorang. “Restorative Justice dalam KUHAP Baru: Antara Kepastian Hukum dan Diskresi Aparat Penegak Hukum.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 26, no. 1 (March 2026): 045–060. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.045-060.

Rambey, Guntur. “Pretrial After the Enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure Code (KUHP).” International Asia Of Law and Money Laundering (IAML) 5, no. 2 (June 2026): 39–45. https://doi.org/10.59712/iaml.v5i2.162.

Riyadi, Padlah. “Restorative Justice Reconstruction with The Indonesian Criminal System After Law No. 1 of 2023.” Protection: Journal Of Land And Environmental Law 2, no. 3 (March 2024): 86–105. None. https://doi.org/10.38142/pjlel.v2i3.1208.

Saffrey-Mayger, Richard George. An Assessment of the United Kingdom’s Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. University of Exeter (United Kingdom), 2014.

Saputra, Tomi, and Aria Zurnetti. “Peranan Bantuan Hukum Sebagai Jaminan Hak Tersangka Dalam (Due Process of Law) Pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Lareh Law Review 3, no. 2 (December 2025): 129–37. https://doi.org/10.25077/llr.3.2.129-137.2025.

Schmauder, Konrad. Die Funktionen Des Ermittlungsrichters Im Strafverfahren. DUNCKER UND HUMBLOT, 2026. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-59873-1.

Soboleva, Anita. “The Balancing Exercise and the Resolution of Rhetorical Antinomies in Judicial Decision-Making.” Ratio Juris 37, no. 2 (2024): 161–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12404.

Susilo, Erwin, Mohd Din, Suhaimi Suhaimi, and Teuku Muttaqin Mansur. “The Right to Be Heard Prior to Judicial Proceedings: Human Rights and Fair Trial Deficiencies in Indonesian Pre-Trial Processes.” Yustisia 15, no. 1 (April 2026): 47–68. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v15i1.102131.

Tornado, Anang Shophan. “Evaluating the Convergence in International Human Rights and Criminal Procedures Law: An Indonesian Case Study.” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 17, no. 2 (2022): 324–36.

Turnip, Rustam Efendi. “Konsep Dasar Terkait Due Process of Law.” JURNAL HUKUM JUSTICE, February 19, 2026, 221–31.

Winoto, Taufik Pandan. “A Comparative Study of KUHAP and the Draft KUHAP on the Protection of Human Rights in Criminal Justice Processes.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Keadilan 2, no. 6 (October 2025): 28–38. https://doi.org/10.61942/jhk.v2i6.453.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33756/jelta.v19i2.41579

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.