Jakarta. The House of Representatives (DPR) is scheduled to hold a plenary session on Tuesday that could see the passage of a major overhaul of the country’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), despite mounting criticism from civil society groups who warn the revisions threaten due process and expand police authority.

According to the parliamentary agenda, lawmakers will decide on the long-debated KUHAP revision, determining whether the bill becomes law. If approved, the new procedural code will take effect in January 2026, coinciding with the rollout of Indonesia’s new Criminal Code (KUHP).

However, the session is overshadowed by strong objections from the Civil Society Coalition for KUHAP Reform, which argues that the revised KUHAP contains numerous articles that weaken protection against abuse of power. The coalition criticized the accelerated legislative process, stating that DPR Commission III and the government completed their approval in just two days on Nov. 13.

Student groups from several universities staged a protest outside the national parliament complex in Jakarta on Tuesday, urging lawmakers to halt deliberations on the new criminal procedure bill. The protesters carried five key demands, including calls for greater transparency, stronger judicial oversight, and the withdrawal of the current draft, which they argue weakens due process and expands the potential for police abuse. They also criticized what they described as misleading public statements from officials and insisted the bill should be revised to genuinely improve Indonesia’s justice system rather than serve political interests.

Jakarta authorities deployed 1,895 police officers across Central Jakarta to secure three separate demonstrations, including the protest at the parliament complex.

Muhammad Isnur, a prominent member of the coalition, said public input submitted through hearings and written recommendations was largely ignored. He argued the rushed timeline reflected political pressure to ensure the procedural law takes effect simultaneously with the new criminal code.

“Substantively, the articles approved at Level I include vague provisions and loopholes that incentivize misuse of authority,” he said.

Among the key concerns:

Broad Investigative Powers Without Oversight
Article 16 authorizes undercover buys, controlled deliveries, surveillance, and other intrusive methods at the inquiry stage, whereas such techniques previously required a criminal investigation and were confined to narcotics cases. Activists warn that this creates opportunities for entrapment and fabricated offenses.

Arrests and Detention Before a Crime Is Established
Article 5 permits arrests, searches, travel bans, and even detention during inquiries, a stage in which the existence of a crime has not been confirmed. Current law forbids detention at this stage.

Weak Constraints on Arrest Duration
Articles 90 and 93 allow 24-hour arrests with exceptions under other laws and permit detention for offenses punishable by five years or more. The coalition says the draft fails to restore critical judicial checks, such as habeas corpus review.

Searches, Seizures, and Wiretaps Without Court Orders
Articles 105, 112A, 132A, and a related provision allow searches, seizures, data blocking, and wiretapping without prior judicial authorization, giving investigators wide discretionary power.

Risk of Coercion in Restorative Justice
Article 74 enables restorative justice at all stages, including during inquiry, potentially creating opportunities for coercion or forced settlements before any wrongdoing is established.

Centralization of Investigative Authority Under Police
Articles 7 and 8 place all civil service and special investigators under police supervision, which critics say grants the National Police “super-agency” powers despite existing case backlogs.

Indefinite Confinement for Persons With Disabilities
Article 137A allows courts to order rehabilitation or treatment for suspects with severe mental or intellectual disabilities without clear time limits, raising fears of arbitrary, indefinite detention.

One provision welcomed by rights groups is Article 31, which permits, though does not mandate, law enforcement agencies to install and operate security cameras in interrogation and detention rooms, in an effort to prevent abuse, intimidation, and violence against witnesses and suspects.