Authored By: Devi Ervina Nursyamsiah
Graduated from Padjadjaran University
I. Introduction
Indonesian law has advanced through the reform of the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), hereinafter “ICC”) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP), hereinafter “ICPC”), which, among other things, regulate judicial pardon, or rechterlijk pardon. In essence, this conceptual framework permits the judge to grant a pardon by taking into consideration the minor nature of the act, the personal circumstances of the perpetrator, or the circumstances at the time of the offense and those arising afterward. The concept of judicial pardon was incorporated because the lawmakers considered that the preceding regulations lacked the necessary flexibility.1 Once the lawmakers enacted the ICC in 2023, they pursued the legislative agenda to enact the ICPC in 2025. Furthermore, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Regulation (Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA), hereinafter “SCR”) No. 3 of 2026 regarding the Judicial Pardon Decision, which was promulgated on July 9th, 2026 and elaborates on the newly enacted statutes.
This article will elaborate on the new paradigm in the Indonesian legal framework. The analysis begins with the regulatory framework of judicial pardon and ultimately examines its implementation and legal impacts.
II. Judicial Pardon in Indonesian Regulation
One of the key modifications within the newly enacted criminal code is the conceptual framework of rechterlijk pardon, or judicial pardon. A primary justification for incorporating this provision is that overcriminalization has led to overcrowding in prisons. Consequently, this undermines correctional and rehabilitative efforts while simultaneously creating humanitarian issues and diminishing the efficiency of the rehabilitation system in prison.2 Another consideration is that the preceding ICC did not explicitly state the penal objective. As a result, court actors frequently disregarded penal objectives, which led to a failure to integrate them into judicial sentencing. For example, court decision No. 46/PID/78/UT/WANITA appears to contradict the principle of material unlawfulness.3 The academic draft of the ICC explains that penal objectives are among the crucial aspects of judicial sentencing and that they affected the expansion of the judge’s authority. This expansion granted judges greater flexibility in sentencing petty crimes.4
This concept is explicitly codified in Article 54, paragraph 2 of the ICC, which elaborates on the judges’ authority to withhold punishment of the perpetrator on humanitarian grounds.5 Furthermore, as stated in Article 4, the jurisdictional scope of SCR No. 3/2026 is restricted to natural persons and excludes corporate criminal liability. The regulation applies to adult defendants charged with offenses under the ICC or lex specialis legislation, while juvenile criminal proceedings remain subject to the prevailing juvenile justice framework.6
Pursuant to the further provisions of SCR No. 3/2026, Article 5, paragraph 3, provides a category of petty crimes eligible for judicial pardon, including petty defamation (Art. 436 ICC), simple assault (Art. 471 ICC), petty theft (Art. 478 ICC), petty embezzlement (Art. 487 ICC), petty fencing (Art. 593 ICC), and other crimes punishable by a maximum of one year’s imprisonment or a category III fine.7 Thereafter, as stated in Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5, the perpetrator’s subjective and environmental factors must be carefully considered before granting a judicial pardon.8 However, Article 6 of SCR No. 3/2026 limits the scope of judicial pardon by excluding criminal offenses that are legally barred from the restorative justice framework, offenses involving abuse of power, offenses committed by a recidivist or involving a joinder of criminal offenses, and offenses against public decency, unless the narrow statutory exception of complaint-based prosecutions applies.9
The procedure of this mechanism is stated in Articles 11 and 12, which provide that a judicial pardon is subject exclusively to appellate review before the High Court and is insulated from cassation review. If a petition for cassation review is pursued, it shall be declared inadmissible, and the case file shall not be transmitted to the Supreme Court. However, if the High Court holds a divergent opinion, the public prosecutor retains the right to lodge a petition for cassation review.10
III. Implementation and Legal Impacts of Judicial Pardon
SCR No. 3/2026 became applicable immediately upon its promulgation on July 9th, 2026. It has already been applied in Case No. 236/Pid.B/2026/PN Ptk before the Pontianak District Court. The judicial decision a quo found that the perpetrator had committed a minor embezzlement; however, a judicial pardon was granted because the statutory requirements had been fully met. The court’s considerations for this verdict included that the offense constituted a petty crime, that the perpetrator demonstrated deep remorse, and that a reconciliation with the victim had been successfully achieved.11 This case demonstrates that the criminal justice system in Indonesia has entered a new era towards a more flexible justice system. However, to ensure its sustainability, a comprehensive evaluation of potential risks and impacts is required.
The most profound critique of this concept is the possibility of abuse of judicial discretion. SCR No. 3/2026 expands judicial discretion and enables judges to uphold substantive justice by focusing on the actual outcome of the ruling for all parties. Rather than merely enforcing the law, a judge, by assessing social realities, can grant a judicial pardon that effectively achieves rehabilitation, reconciliation, and the restoration of social relations disrupted by the offense. Nonetheless, a lack of sufficient statutory limitations can engender sentencing disparities and systemic injustice, ultimately contravening the humanistic goals of the ICC.12 This could seriously undermine the criminal justice system in Indonesia; furthermore, any failures in enforcement will consequently impair public trust.
In connection therewith, the judge’s decision is likely to establish a judicial precedent. Even though Indonesia has not adopted the precedent system, the judiciary formally recognizes authoritative court rulings. This indubitably risks destabilizing legal certainty and encouraging unnecessary judicial over-interpretation. Therefore, a solid safeguard must be instituted to limit this authority.
An additional parameter that must be considered is the victim’s rights. The main focus of judicial pardon is the perpetrator; however, judges cannot disregard the interests of victims, who may require assurance of protection.13 Potential intimidation and threats targeting victims risk undermining the objectivity of judicial pardons. Therefore, before declaring a judicial pardon, judges must conduct an exhaustive evidentiary examination. Although SCR No. 3/2026 sets out an overview of the measures judges must consider, judges must remain circumspect, as the limited statutory elaboration risks defeating the very core of justice it seeks to uphold.
IV. Conclusion
Rechterlijk pardon, or judicial pardon, is one of the key modifications within the newly enacted Indonesian Criminal Code (ICC). The statutory basis of this conceptual framework is Article 54, paragraph 2 of the ICC. The lawmakers, as written in the academic draft of the ICC, considered this mechanism a manifestation of a flexible legal system. Furthermore, this regulation serves as a remedy to address overcriminalization, which undermines the efficiency of the criminal justice system. This judicial pardon framework is subsequently elaborated in SCR No. 3/2026 on the Judicial Pardon Decision.
The application of SCR No. 3/2026 is already evident in contemporary cases, as demonstrated in Case No. 236/Pid.B/2026/PN Ptk before the Pontianak District Court. Nevertheless, continuous critical evaluation remains imperative to fortify and refine the Indonesian judicial system. The future enforcement of judicial pardons faces two critical challenges. First, unregulated application risks destabilizing legal certainty and eroding public trust due to perceived judicial inconsistency. Second, it threatens victims’ rights, as potential intimidation and coercion invalidate the voluntary consent legally required to grant such a pardon.
Footnote(S):
1 Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional [BPHN] [National Law Development Agency], Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana [Academic Draft of the Bill on the Criminal Code] (2015),https://bphn.go.id/data/documents/naskah_akademik_tentang_kuhp_dengan_lampiran.pdf?__cf_chl_rt_tk=POkxBKiPyUr2v1GPC7ngQPiG._sUI29q3Ahm28n8R7c-1785983677-1.0.1.1-ClS93uEF46iFFCNmJqdRfCo5QeEU9VCX.1nutANwm48
2 M. Yofarrel, Kriminalisasi Berlebihan (Overcriminalization) sebagai Faktor Struktural Overcrowding Lapas dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana, UNES Law Review Vol 8 (1), (2025), 10.31933/unesrev.v8i1.2504.
3 Komisi III DPR RI [Commission III of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia], Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana [Academic Draft of the Bill on the Criminal Procedural Code] (2025) https://icjr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Naskah-Akademik-RUU-KUHAP-2025.pdf
4 Id.
5 Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code
6 Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2026 on the Judicial Pardon Decision
7 Id.
8 Id
9 Id
10 Id
11 Syarifudin, Urif. Terapkan PERMA 3/2026, PN Pontianak Beri Pemaafan Hakim dalam Kasus Penggelapan [Apply PERMA 3/2026, Pontianak District Court Grants Judicial Pardon in Embezzlement Case]. Dandapala (2026)https://dandapala.com/article/detail/terapkan-perma-32026-pn-pontianak-beri-pemaafan-hakim-dalam-kasus-penggelapan
12 Hartono, Frensius Widi, Andika Wijaya & Satriya Nugraha. Judicial Pardon sebagai Wujud Humanisasi Pemidanaan dalam KUHP 2023 [Judicial Pardon as a Form of Sentencing Humanization in the 2023 Criminal Code], Journal of Innovative and Creativity, (2025), https://doi.org/10.31004/joecy.v5i3.4307
13 Irhamdessetya, Hani. Rekonstruksi Regulasi Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana Berbasis Nilai Keadilan Restoratif [Regulation Reconstruction of Witness and Victim Protection from Restorative Justice-Based Criminal Justice System Perspective] (2024) (Doctoral thesis, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang).https://repository.unissula.ac.id/35206/
Reference(S):
Regulation
Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Indonesian Criminal Code
Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code
Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2026 on the Judicial Pardon Decision
Secondary Sources
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional [BPHN] [National Law Development Agency], Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana [Academic Draft of the Bill on the Criminal Code] (2015), https://bphn.go.id/data/documents/naskah_akademik_tentang_kuhp_dengan_lampiran.pdf?__cf_chl_rt_tk=POkxBKiPyUr2v1GPC7ngQPiG._sUI29q3Ahm28n8R7c-1785983677-1.0.1.1-ClS93uEF46iFFCNmJqdRfCo5QeEU9VCX.1nutANwm48
Hartono, Frensius Widi, Andika Wijaya & Satriya Nugraha. Judicial Pardon sebagai Wujud Humanisasi Pemidanaan dalam KUHP 2023 [Judicial Pardon as a Form of Sentencing Humanization in the 2023 Criminal Code], Journal of Innovative and Creativity, (2025), https://doi.org/10.31004/joecy.v5i3.4307
Irhamdessetya, Hani. Rekonstruksi Regulasi Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana Berbasis Nilai Keadilan Restoratif [Regulation Reconstruction of Witness and Victim Protection from Restorative Justice-Based Criminal Justice System Perspective] (2024) (Doctoral thesis, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang). https://repository.unissula.ac.id/35206/
Komisi III DPR RI [Commission III of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia], Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana [Academic Draft of the Bill on the Criminal Procedural Code] (2025), https://icjr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Naskah-Akademik-RUU-KUHAP-2025.pdf
M. Yofarrel, Kriminalisasi Berlebihan (Overcriminalization) sebagai Faktor Struktural Overcrowding Lapas dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana, UNES Law Review Vol 8 (1), (2025), 10.31933/unesrev.v8i1.2504
Syarifudin, Urif. Terapkan PERMA 3/2026, PN Pontianak Beri Pemaafan Hakim dalam Kasus Penggelapan [Apply PERMA 3/2026, Pontianak District Court Grants Judicial Pardon in Embezzlement Case]. Dandapala (2026). https://dandapala.com/article/detail/terapkan-perma-32026-pn-pontianak-beri-pemaafan-hakim-dalam-kasus-penggelapan
