Indonesia's New Criminal Code Replaces Colonial Law and Sparks Debate Over Rights

A Legal Reset Reaches Into Public and Private Life

Indonesia's new Criminal Code took effect on January 2, 2026, replacing the Dutch colonial penal code that had been in place since 1918. The overhaul changes rules governing street demonstrations, sex outside marriage, religious expression and criminal punishment, placing questions about personal freedom at the centre of a reform presented by the government as an act of national independence.

The legislation, known as the KUHP, was ratified in 2022 after years of preparation and followed by a transition period of three years. Its hundreds of articles reach into nearly every part of public and private life in the world's third largest democracy. As of January 22, the debate concerns both what the law says and how police, prosecutors, judges and local authorities will apply it.

Government officials say Indonesia needs a criminal justice framework rooted in its own values, culture and social conditions rather than rules inherited from a colonial power. They describe the replacement as decolonization: removing a foreign legal legacy and establishing a framework suited to the country's diverse communities.

Activists, legal scholars, international human rights organizations and diplomatic partners see a different danger. They fear that broad wording and severe penalties will give authorities more ways to suppress dissent, enforce moral conformity and interfere with personal decisions. Journalists, minority groups and government critics are among those concerned about how the new powers could be used.

Indonesia's dispute therefore reaches beyond the replacement of an old statute. The government says the code reflects the will of the Indonesian people and their religious and cultural norms. Its opponents argue that national sovereignty must coexist with constitutional freedoms and international human rights obligations, including the rights to speak, assemble and choose a religion.

From Colonial Rules to a Contested National Code

The change has unfolded across more than a century of legal history, followed by a much shorter period of preparation for the new rules:

• 1918: The Dutch colonial penal code began the period of operation that ended with the new KUHP.
• 2022: Indonesia ratified the new Criminal Code after years of work on the legislation.
• January 2, 2026: The new code took effect following a transition period of three years.
• January 22, 2026: Debate continued over its effects on civil liberties, policing, private conduct and religious freedom.

Officials argue that the new framework frees Indonesia's criminal law from foreign influence. Critics regard parts of it as a retreat from freedoms secured through the country's democratic development. Both positions focus on the same extensive reform, but judge its success by different measures: national ownership of the law, or the protection people receive when that law is enforced.

The code also contains changes intended to protect religious sites and reduce reliance on imprisonment. Those measures sit alongside new or expanded offenses affecting demonstrations, intimate relationships and religious speech. Understanding the reform requires looking at those provisions separately, because each gives authorities different powers and exposes people to different risks.

When an Unannounced Protest Becomes a Crime

Organizing a parade, rally or demonstration on public streets without notifying police is now a criminal offense carrying up to six months in jail. Previously, failure to give notice was an administrative violation. The change means an organizer can face criminal punishment over a requirement that had been handled outside criminal prosecution.

Edward Hiariej, the deputy minister of law and human rights, defended the rule by distinguishing notification from permission. In the government's explanation, organizers must inform police in advance so officers can manage roads and public order; the requirement does not ban the expression of opinions.

Hiariej cited an incident in West Sumatra in which a critically ill patient died after an ambulance became trapped in traffic caused by an unannounced protest. He said advance notice allows police to protect other people's access to public roads:

A notification is a must, so police can plan and redirect traffic, ensuring everyone else's traffic rights are protected.

Civil society groups and labor unions face a new calculation when planning public action: failure to notify police can now bring a prison sentence. Activists and legal scholars say this is especially troubling for spontaneous demonstrations responding to sudden government decisions or emergencies, when organizing and giving advance notice may be difficult.

Andreas Harsono, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, described the provision as a "rubber article," meaning a rule that can be stretched through loose interpretation to catch many different people. Critics say the meaning of disruption to the public interest is subjective, leaving law enforcement considerable discretion over arrests.

Usman Hamid, executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia, warned that people exercising their right to express opinions through demonstrations could end up in prison. The concern is a chilling effect: people may stay silent because they fear punishment, even before anyone is arrested. Critics also fear selective enforcement against government opponents while demonstrations aligned with state interests receive more lenient treatment.

Family Complaints and the Policing of Relationships

Article 411 makes consensual sex outside marriage punishable by up to one year in prison. Article 412 provides a penalty of up to six months for couples living together as husband and wife without a legal marriage. These provisions extend criminal law into decisions about relationships and households.

The government says both offenses depend on a complaint. A spouse, parent or child of the accused must make a formal police report before prosecution can proceed. Officials present this limit as a safeguard against police actively raiding homes and as reassurance to the tourism industry that foreign visitors will not be arbitrarily targeted.

Critics argue that requiring a complaint gives potentially vindictive relatives a powerful tool. They also fear pressure from neighbors, although the stated mechanism reserves the formal complaint to a spouse, parent or child. A dispute within a family can therefore become the starting point for criminal proceedings over private conduct.

LGBT people face particular risks because Indonesia does not legally recognize marriage between people of the same sex. Human Rights Watch says the ban on sex outside marriage effectively makes consensual same-sex conduct illegal, exposing people to blackmail and extortion. The change has been described as the first explicit criminalization of consensual same-sex conduct between adults under Indonesia's national law.

Couples married through religious or customary ceremonies face another problem if they lack official marriage certificates. Millions of couples, especially in rural areas and Indigenous communities, do not have those documents. Researchers estimate that as many as half of all Indonesian couples may lack certificates because registration is costly and complicated.

Those couples may have unions accepted by their families and communities while lacking the paperwork needed to demonstrate their status to the state. Critics warn that the new provisions could expose such households to prosecution, making access to marriage registration an issue with direct consequences for personal freedom.

Abortion Rules Raise Concerns About Women's Health

The new code maintains criminal penalties for abortion while allowing limited exceptions for rape or medical emergencies. The rules described in the reform permit the procedure only within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The code also restricts the distribution of information about contraception to minors and criminalizes providing information about obtaining an abortion.

Women's rights advocates say these provisions affect bodily autonomy, meaning a person's ability to make decisions about their own body. Restrictions on both procedures and information can shape whether women and girls obtain medical advice, understand their options or seek treatment through the formal healthcare system.

Indonesia has an estimated 1.7 million abortions annually, most performed outside formal healthcare services. Its maternal mortality rate is approximately 140 deaths per 100,000 live births. These figures explain why advocates view the abortion rules as a health issue as well as a dispute about morality and criminal punishment.

Restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the number of abortions, according to the public health reasoning behind the criticism. Instead, they push procedures underground, where they can be unsafe. Advocates warn that limiting access to safe procedures and reliable information threatens to increase deaths associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

The World Health Organization and various human rights bodies have called for abortion to be decriminalized to protect women's rights to life, health and freedom from cruel or degrading treatment. Removing criminal penalties is central to that position because fear of prosecution can affect decisions about seeking care.

Women and girls may also face consequences extending beyond immediate medical harm. Advocates warn that restrictions can contribute to a girl's education ending, increased child marriage and lasting damage to physical health. Their objection is that reproductive healthcare is being governed chiefly through moral compliance rather than the information and medical support people need.

Police Powers Change Alongside Criminal Offenses

Indonesia's new Criminal Procedure Code, known as the KUHAP, accompanies the substantive Criminal Code. The distinction is practical: the KUHP sets out offenses and punishments, while the KUHAP governs how crimes are investigated and prosecuted. A change in either can affect a person's experience of the justice system.

Civil society groups say the procedural reform removes requirements for judicial warrants in cases of arrest and detention, allowing police to detain people without court oversight. Their concern is that fewer checks by judges will make arbitrary detention easier, including detention used to silence critics.

The Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, identified as LBH, argues that the new framework gives police a "superpower" status. It says the changes disrupt the independence of other investigators and create opportunities for cases to be manipulated. Legal experts connect those fears to Indonesia's existing difficulties in holding police accountable.

The interaction between the two codes matters. Broadly worded offenses create more room for interpretation, while wider investigative powers determine how quickly and forcefully authorities can act on that interpretation. Critics see public oversight and access to independent review as central to preventing abuse.

Community Service Offers an Alternative to Prison

Judges can now impose community service of between 8 and 240 hours instead of imprisonment for minor offenses carrying a maximum sentence of five years. The measure is intended to ease pressure on prisons operating at nearly double their capacity and to provide a more humane response to less serious crime.

Community service requires an offender to complete work rather than serve time in prison. Its introduction gives judges another sentencing option in a system where severe overcrowding affects the conditions in which prisoners live.

Analysts nevertheless warn that access to this alternative could be unequal. Wealthier defendants with better lawyers may be more successful in obtaining sentences outside prison, while poorer defendants without resources or connections may still be jailed. That outcome could strengthen perceptions that the justice system punishes poverty rather than judging the offense fairly.

The reform's success will depend on intensive supervision and clear guidance for judges. Critics want safeguards against decisions being influenced by political pressure or financial gain, so that the choice between community service and prison is applied consistently.

Religious Protection Sits Beside Expanded Restrictions

Article 305 criminalizes the desecration of places of worship and religious objects, with penalties of up to five years in prison. For religious minorities in the world's largest nation with a Muslim majority, the provision offers a possible means of protection against attacks on sacred places and objects.

The code also expands the existing blasphemy provisions from one article to six, while reducing the maximum prison term to three years. It includes a provision described as effectively outlawing apostasy, or leaving a religion, and criminalizes persuading someone to leave their faith. Critics regard these restrictions as a setback for freedom of religion and belief.

The recognition of "any living law" creates another area of concern. Living law refers here to rules operating within communities. Critics fear that recognizing it could give legal validity to hundreds of local regulations inspired by Sharia that discriminate against women and minorities.

Minority advocates question whether protection for places of worship will be enforced consistently. Authorities have often failed to protect minorities from intimidation by hardline groups and have sometimes sided with the majority in the name of maintaining order. Administrative obstacles can also prevent minority communities from building or renovating places of worship.

Bonar Tigor Naipospos of the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace said the effectiveness of the new provisions depends on the choices made by law enforcement and local authorities:

Everything depends on law enforcement. It also depends on whether local governments uphold the constitution or prioritize political accommodation.

Naipospos's assessment places constitutional protection at the centre of implementation. Without a commitment to defending the rights of all citizens, minority advocates fear the new rules will fail to prevent harassment and exclusion even where the code promises protection.

Legal Challenges and International Objections

Domestic civil society coalitions have declared a "legal emergency," arguing that the code conflicts with Indonesia's Constitution and international human rights obligations. Legal aid organizations are preparing judicial reviews in the Constitutional Court, challenging restrictions on expression, access to information and religion. No hearing date was given.

A judicial review asks the court to examine whether a law is compatible with the Constitution. For opponents of the code, that process offers a way to challenge provisions through the legal system rather than relying solely on public protest or political pressure.

The government says it welcomes these challenges as a healthy part of democracy. Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas acknowledged that the new powers carry risks of abuse and stressed the need for public oversight. Critics argue that vague wording gives officials opportunities to criminalize legitimate criticism of government policies.

International human rights organizations have also condemned the reform. Human Rights Watch called the code "disastrous for rights," while the International Commission of Jurists described it as a major setback. During drafting, foreign governments, including the United States, urged Indonesia to reconsider provisions threatening civil liberties.

Diplomatic concerns join domestic fears about shrinking civic space, meaning the room people have to speak, organize and challenge authority. Similar restrictions on speech and assembly have been observed in neighboring countries, where lèse-majesté laws governing insults to monarchs and regulations against disinformation have been used to curb dissent.

Indonesia's new framework now puts responsibility on police, courts and local governments to apply its provisions. The immediate dispute is whether the promised benefits of national legal independence, religious protection and alternatives to prison can be delivered while preserving democratic freedoms and preventing the misuse of broader state powers.

Key Points

• The new KUHP took effect on January 2, 2026, replacing the Dutch colonial penal code in place since 1918.
• Failure to notify police before a street demonstration can bring up to six months in prison.
• Sex outside marriage carries up to one year in prison; cohabitation without legal marriage carries up to six months. Prosecution requires a qualifying family complaint.
• LGBT people and couples without official marriage certificates face particular risks under the relationship provisions.
• Abortion remains criminalized with limited exceptions, alongside restrictions on reproductive health information.
• Civil society groups warn that the accompanying KUHAP expands police powers and weakens judicial oversight.
• Community service of 8 to 240 hours offers an alternative to imprisonment for qualifying minor offenses.
• The code protects religious sites while expanding blasphemy provisions and restricting conduct involving departure from a religion.
• Legal aid organizations are preparing constitutional challenges, while the government says it welcomes review and public oversight.