Pretrial Review In Indonesia: Judicial Control Under The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="actanova-preservation">Journal Customary Law</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Journal Customary Law</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">3026-460X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Indonesian Journal Publisher</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">pretrial-review-in-indonesia-judicial-control-under-the-2025-criminal-procedure-code</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.47134/jcl.v3i4.6382</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Pretrial Review In Indonesia: Judicial Control Under The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Pattinasarany</surname>
            <given-names>Eva Berta</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>26</day>
        <month>09</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>3</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© 2026 Indonesian Journal Publisher</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
          <license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <abstract>
        <p>The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) changes the architecture of pretrial review in Indonesia. The new framework places the legality of coercive measures, termination of investigation or prosecution, unrelated seizures, unjustified delay in case handling, and suspension or postponement of detention within the jurisdiction of pretrial review. This article examines whether the expansion strengthens judicial control and due process of law and identifies safeguards necessary to make the remedy effective. The study uses normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. It compares the 1981 KUHAP framework with Articles 158–164 of the 2025 KUHAP and examines Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 and current constitutional litigation concerning Articles 158 letter e and 163 paragraph (1) letter e. The analysis finds that the new KUHAP moves Indonesian pretrial review from a relatively limited procedural remedy toward a broader mechanism of judicial control. However, expansion alone does not guarantee effective protection. Uncertainty remains concerning standing for challenges to unjustified delay, the interaction between prior judicial authorization and subsequent review, evidentiary consequences of unlawful coercive measures, and the absence of a clear outer limit for suspension of the main trial. The article proposes a rights-oriented model based on legality, standing, proportionality, effective remedy, timeliness, and finality</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author">
        <kwd>Criminal Procedure</kwd>
        <kwd>Due Process of Law</kwd>
        <kwd>Exclusionary Rule</kwd>
        <kwd>Judicial Control</kwd>
        <kwd>Pretrial Review</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
      <self-uri content-type="application/pdf" xlink:title="ActaNova Permanent Archival PDF" xlink:href="https://actanova.mediadigitalpublikasi.com/journals/articles/pretrial-review-in-indonesia-judicial-control-under-the-2025-criminal-procedure-code/pdf-stream" />
      <self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:title="ActaNova Responsive HTML Galley" xlink:href="https://actanova.mediadigitalpublikasi.com/journals/articles/pretrial-review-in-indonesia-judicial-control-under-the-2025-criminal-procedure-code/html" />
      <self-uri content-type="original-pdf" xlink:title="Original Publisher PDF Document" xlink:href="/uploads/papers/journals/article_563.pdf" />
      <supplementary-material content-type="original-pdf" xlink:title="Original Publisher PDF Document" xlink:href="/uploads/papers/journals/article_563.pdf">
        <caption xml:lang="en"><p>Original PDF file published by Indonesian Journal Publisher</p></caption>
      </supplementary-material>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
      <title>Full Text &amp; Preserved Archival Statement</title>
      <p>The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) changes the architecture of pretrial review in Indonesia. The new framework places the legality of coercive measures, termination of investigation or prosecution, unrelated seizures, unjustified delay in case handling, and suspension or postponement of detention within the jurisdiction of pretrial review. This article examines whether the expansion strengthens judicial control and due process of law and identifies safeguards necessary to make the remedy effective. The study uses normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. It compares the 1981 KUHAP framework with Articles 158–164 of the 2025 KUHAP and examines Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 and current constitutional litigation concerning Articles 158 letter e and 163 paragraph (1) letter e. The analysis finds that the new KUHAP moves Indonesian pretrial review from a relatively limited procedural remedy toward a broader mechanism of judicial control. However, expansion alone does not guarantee effective protection. Uncertainty remains concerning standing for challenges to unjustified delay, the interaction between prior judicial authorization and subsequent review, evidentiary consequences of unlawful coercive measures, and the absence of a clear outer limit for suspension of the main trial. The article proposes a rights-oriented model based on legality, standing, proportionality, effective remedy, timeliness, and finality</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ack>
      <p>Digitally preserved and archived by ActaNova Digital Archival &amp; Preservation Network (Permanent Archival Node: https://actanova.mediadigitalpublikasi.com/journals).</p>
    </ack>
  </back>
</article>