Normative Disharmony of Restorative Justice Mechanism in Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning The Criminal Procedure Code

Abstract

The enactment of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code and Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code on January 2, 2026, marked a fundamental shift in the position of restorative justice in Indonesia, from a practice that initially relied on the discretion of law enforcement officers through institutionallevel regulations to norms expressly regulated in law. This study aims to analyze the internal consistency of the restorative justice mechanism provisions in Articles 79 to 88 and Article 204 of Law No. 20 of 2025, and examine their implications for the principle of legal certainty. This study is a normative legal study with a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach, using primary legal materials in the form of statutory regulations and secondary legal materials in the form of criminal law literature and accredited journal articles. The results of the study show three main findings. First, the codification of restorative justice in criminal procedure law strengthens its normative legitimacy while placing the court as the controller of case termination through the obligation to appoint the head of the district court. Second, there is a normative conflict between Article 80 paragraph (1) letter a which opens a restorative justice mechanism for criminal acts with a maximum prison sentence of five years and Article 82 letter e which actually excludes criminal acts with a maximum prison sentence of five years or more; this conflict is resolved through Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026 which hierarchically does not constitute a statutory regulation. Third, the failure to issue the Government Regulation mandated by Article 88 and Article 204 paragraph (9) has resulted in fragmented practice and left Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021, Prosecutor's Regulation Number 15 of 2020, and Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2024 in an uncertain normative position. This study recommends a limited revision of Article 82 letter e through legislative mechanisms, accelerated issuance of Government Regulations, and harmonization of sectoral regulations so that restorative justice does not turn into an uncontrolled discretionary space.