Executive Summary
Indonesia is in the midst of a historic transformation of its criminal justice system, with restorative justice (RJ) at the centre of that reform. The landmark National Criminal Code (KUHP, Law No. 1 of 2023) and its companion Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP, Law No. 20 of 2025) came into force on 2 January 2026, formally embedding RJ principles — rehabilitation, mediation, community service, and victim-centred restitution — into the country’s legal framework for the first time, replacing colonial-era laws dating to 1918 and 1981. Underpinning this shift is chronic prison overcrowding (the system held 276,136 prisoners against an official capacity of 149,651 at end of 2025 — an occupancy rate of 184.5%), as well as a body of emerging research demonstrating that RJ increases victim satisfaction, reduces recidivism, and aligns with indigenous Pancasila and adat (customary law) values. Significant research activity across 2024–2026 has examined the new legislative landscape, domain-specific applications (juvenile justice, domestic violence, narcotics, environmental crime), pilot programmes at the city level, and the deep cultural questions raised by integrating state law with Indonesia’s pluralistic customary traditions.[1][2][3][4][^5]
1. The New Legal Architecture
1.1 KUHP and KUHAP: A Paradigm Shift
The enactment of KUHP Law No. 1/2023 and the new KUHAP (Law No. 20/2025) represents the most sweeping criminal law reform in Indonesia since independence. Coordinating Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra described it as “a historic milestone that marks the beginning of a new era in Indonesia’s legal system.” The KUHP’s core RJ provisions are embedded in Articles 51–54, which reorient the purpose of punishment toward re-education and rehabilitation grounded in “forgiving divine values,” and Article 132, which nullifies prosecution where a settlement has already been reached outside the judicial process. The new KUHAP, through Articles 79–88, formally recognises RJ mechanisms involving victims and perpetrators, while carving out exclusions for serious offences such as terrorism, corruption, sexual violence, and crimes against life. Article 246 further empowers judges to declare a defendant guilty without imposing a criminal sanction where the offence is minor and humanitarian considerations warrant it.[6][7][4][8]
1.2 Regulatory Ecosystem Prior to 2026
The legislative shift builds on an accumulated regulatory base. Key instruments already in place include Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (the first formal recognition of RJ in Indonesian law), Regulation of the Chief of Police No. 8 of 2021 (operationalising RJ at the police level), and Circular of the Attorney General No. 15 of 2020. Research published in 2024 and 2025 has extensively mapped these instruments, noting that while a framework existed, it lacked the coherence and statutory weight to drive consistent practice. The 2023 KUHP was identified as a key opportunity to consolidate and codify principles that had previously been scattered across ministerial regulations.[9][10][11][6]
1.3 Critical Assessments of the New Code
Not all commentary is celebratory. A critical review published in 2024 found that despite its RJ ambitions, the KUHP “lacks precise guidelines, resulting in legal ambiguities” — particularly around which offences qualify for RJ settlement and what standards apply to the process. The same study identified societal resistance rooted in a “cultural preference for punitive justice” as a significant barrier. A separate 2025 study from the University of Muhammadiyah Malang confirmed that while RJ’s potential is clear, implementation “still faces several challenges, such as limited institutional capacity, lack of adequate training for law enforcement officers, and uneven implementation across regions.”[12][10]
2. Domain-Specific Research
2.1 Juvenile Justice
The juvenile justice domain remains the most institutionally advanced area of RJ practice in Indonesia, anchored by the 2012 Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law which mandated diversion — the formal routing of children away from court proceedings into RJ processes. Research published in 2025 from Mataram City (Lombok) found that RJ implementation in juvenile cases was “relatively effective in diverting children from lengthy legal proceedings,” but that its success depended heavily on law enforcement officers’ understanding of the process and the availability of support facilities. A 2025 conference paper presented at the International Forum on Public Law and Environmental Science concluded that RJ must be treated as an integral, not merely alternative, component of the juvenile justice system, and called for a holistic and systemic model coordinated across state institutions and civil society.[13][14][15][16]
A 2025 study on institutional reform found that diversion rates remain low due to weak inter-agency coordination, limited human resources, and the absence of an integrated institutional mechanism — recommending the creation of a permanent coordination body between child law enforcement agencies. These findings collectively point to a significant implementation gap between the legal aspiration and frontline practice.[^14]
2.2 Domestic Violence
Domestic violence (DV) sits at a particularly contested intersection of RJ and victim rights. Data from Komnas Perempuan (the National Commission on Violence Against Women) reported 445,502 cases of gender-based violence in 2024 — a 9.77% increase from 2023, and part of a cumulative total of over 2.7 million cases recorded between 2015 and 2024. A 2025 normative-legal study from Universitas Sunan Giri Surabaya evaluated the potential of RJ as an alternative approach to DV case management, finding that “shortcomings in legal enforcement and erroneous social perceptions often hinder the justice process for victims,” while RJ offers a “more humane and inclusive” pathway — provided significant legislative reform and increased law enforcement training accompany it.[17][18][^19]
A concurrent study published in 2025 examined RJ at the police level under Perpol No. 8/2021, finding that RJ resolution of DV cases is permissible but only where specific material and formal requirements are met, including the categorisation of the offence as mild rather than moderate or severe. Critics and women’s advocates have raised concerns that these eligibility thresholds are applied inconsistently, and that DV victims may face pressure to enter mediation processes. An Asialink analysis from late 2025 noted that domestic violence training for judiciary members “is not yet mandatory or widespread across Indonesia,” which compounds the risks of applying RJ in gendered power contexts.[20][21]
2.3 Narcotics and Drug Offences
Drug offences account for a significant share of Indonesia’s prison population and are a major driver of overcrowding. A 2024 empirical legal study published in the Journal of Legal and Justice Studies found that applying RJ to narcotics cases is “very important” given that the retributive approach “does not provide significant benefits and can even create new losses for victims and the state.” The study argued that Law No. 35 of 2009 already requires rehabilitation for drug addicts, but that these efforts “have not been optimal,” and that RJ frameworks — particularly medical and social rehabilitation — could reduce institutional pressure while supporting reintegration. A 2024–25 comparative study presented at the International Conference on Constitutional Law and Business drew on Portugal’s decriminalisation model to argue that Indonesia should develop independent evaluative institutions for treatment referrals, emphasising that success “hinges on considering each case’s individual circumstances.”[22][23][^24]
The new KUHP addresses this directly: medical or social rehabilitation for narcotics users has been formally incorporated as an alternative to imprisonment, a reform welcomed by civil society groups who had long urged a human rights-based approach to drug law.[^3]
2.4 Environmental Crime
Environmental RJ is an emerging and relatively under-developed area of research. A December 2025 study published in the Asia Pacific Fraud Journal found that while Indonesia’s restorative processes have been formalised across various agencies since 2012, “there are no specific regulations on restorative justice in the environmental sector.” The study proposed a multi-instrument enforcement model in which environmental RJ is not a case termination but rather a process of restoring the damaged environment as the primary victim, supported by administrative sanctions and dispute resolution mechanisms. A 2026 paper went further, conceptualising RJ frameworks for environmental crimes through Indonesia’s customary criminal law lens, linking adat liability structures to environmental restoration obligations. These studies signal growing scholarly interest in RJ as a tool for environmental accountability, though legislative action remains absent.[25][26]
3. Cultural Foundations: Pancasila, Adat, and Local Wisdom
One of the most vibrant threads in recent Indonesian RJ scholarship concerns the alignment — and tension — between international RJ frameworks and Indonesia’s indigenous values. Multiple studies argue that Indonesia is not simply importing a Western model but drawing on deep cultural resources.
3.1 Pancasila as Philosophical Foundation
A 2025 qualitative study integrating Pancasila values into RJ analysis found that the principles of “Just and Civilized Humanity” and “Social Justice” directly support humanistic, rehabilitative approaches through mediation and dialogue. The same research found that RJ “provides a humanistic and rehabilitative approach… reducing the burden on the judicial system and strengthening social cohesion,” while identifying inconsistencies in police discretion and lack of structured training as the main barriers. Government officials have explicitly framed the new KUHP as “creating a new legal system based on the people, customary law, and religious law that are evolving in our society, in accordance with the philosophy of Pancasila.”[2][27]
3.2 Adat (Customary Law) and Legal Pluralism
The integration of customary law institutions (lembaga adat) into RJ processes is emerging as both a strength and a source of normative risk. A major 2025 study examining the new Criminal Code found that while recognition of customary institutions “strengthens social recovery and community involvement,” it simultaneously raises challenges around “inconsistent sanctions, low accountability, and potential local bias.” The authors proposed rule-level pathways including accreditation standards for customary institutions, minimum procedural guidelines, and sentencing guidelines to bring adat processes within due process baselines.[^28]
A September 2025 decolonial study published in Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum went further, arguing that adat justice should be repositioned as “an equal source of restorative reasons” rather than a subordinate supplement to state law. The study found that customary processes satisfy core penological aims — harm, accountability, repair, and ritual reintegration — where conditions of timely notice, freely given consent, accredited facilitation, and written records are present.[^29]
A 2024 study specifically highlighted the potential of musyawarah (deliberation), mufakat (consensus), and gotong royong (mutual cooperation) as practical foundations for RJ. These cultural mechanisms align naturally with RJ’s dialogic and community-centred processes, offering resources that are unavailable in societies where Western RJ was first developed.[30][31]
3.3 Islamic and Religious Dimensions
A 2026 analysis published in the Canopy Forum examined the integration of Islamic dispute resolution (Islah, or reconciliation) into Indonesia’s Alternative Dispute Resolution framework, particularly the Mukim justice system in Aceh — noting that it “operates without standardized procedures, clear jurisdictional boundaries, or meaningful coordination with the state’s justice system” despite deep community trust and Islamic moral authority. This case illustrates the broader challenge of bringing religiously embedded justice traditions into a coherent national framework.[^32]
4. Systemic Research and Evidence
4.1 Effectiveness: Victim Satisfaction and Recidivism
A 2025 Systematic Literature Review (SLR) published in the journal Laju, drawing on 51 articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases, found that RJ implementation “can increase victim satisfaction and reduce recidivism rates, as well as strengthen community involvement in the justice process.” This consolidates a body of evidence that had previously been fragmented across individual studies. International evidence cited in earlier scholarship found that RJ reduced recidivism by an average of 27% in UK contexts, providing a comparative benchmark for Indonesian policymakers.[1][22]
4.2 Prison Overcrowding Imperative
The case for RJ is inseparable from Indonesia’s incarceration crisis. As of December 2025, Indonesia’s prison system held 276,136 people against an official capacity of 149,651 — a 184.5% occupancy rate. Some facilities operate at between 300% and 800% of capacity. The new KUHAP’s RJ provisions, alternatives to pre-trial detention, and guilty-plea pathways for first-time offenders facing up to five years’ imprisonment are explicitly designed to address this pressure. A newly established Ministry of Immigration and Corrections (created late 2024) has begun introducing non-custodial sentencing reforms alongside Integrity Zone anti-corruption measures within the prison system.[33][5][^8]
4.3 UNODC and International Engagement
In April 2024, UNODC and Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights co-hosted a public discussion marking the launch of the Restorative Justice Programme Handbook, Second Edition (Indonesian version). The event highlighted a “gap between the paradigm owned by law enforcement, that focuses more on procedural and retributive justice, and the paradigm in society, that emphasizes substantial and restorative justice.” UNODC’s Kenneth Zurcher emphasised that genuine RJ “demands accountability and the harm they have committed… requires transparency, which hence increases the obligation of authorities to ensure that programmes are not misused for corruption nor discrimination.”[^34]
5. Pilots and Local Implementation: The Makassar Model
At the sub-national level, Makassar (South Sulawesi) stands out as Indonesia’s most developed RJ pilot. Mayor’s Regulation No. 91 of 2023 — supported by The Asia Foundation through the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice Phase 2 (AIPJ2) — created a formal policy framework for RJ support services. As of early 2025, the Makassar city government and LBH (Legal Aid) Makassar were finalising a Mayor’s Regulation (Perwali) on Restorative Justice Support Services, outlining procedures for legal aid, mediation, counselling, and social rehabilitation. Mayor Ramdhan Pomanto described RJ as involving “various service optimizations, such as community services for individuals in conflict with the law, including health care and education services.” The initiative is explicitly intended to serve as “an important reference of policy best practices for national policymakers once implemented.”[35][36][^37]
The Asia Foundation has also published a study of Indonesian public attitudes toward RJ (Studi Sikap Publik Terhadap Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif di Indonesia), identifying the forms of RJ most appropriate to the Indonesian context and assessing the degree of community acceptance — a critical input for policy design.[38][39]
6. Key Challenges and Research Gaps
Recent literature converges on a consistent set of obstacles:
| Challenge | Research Evidence |
| Retributive mindset among law enforcement | Widespread — documented across police, prosecution, and judicial levels[2][10][^34] |
| Inconsistent implementation across regions | Uneven practice noted in Mataram, Jakarta, and nationally[12][16] |
| Limited training for law enforcement | Identified as a structural gap requiring systemic solution[12][2][^14] |
| Legal ambiguity in new KUHP | Lack of precise implementation guidelines[10][28] |
| Risk of misuse against vulnerable parties | Particular concern in DV, sexual violence, and gendered power contexts[17][21] |
| Uneven integration of adat institutions | Normative challenges: inconsistent sanctions, accountability, local bias[28][29] |
| Absence of RJ regulation for environmental crime | No specific environmental RJ regulations despite growing interest[^26] |
| Corruption risks | RJ processes can be misused to circumvent accountability[34][33] |
Research gaps identified in the literature include: longitudinal recidivism data within Indonesia; victim experience studies beyond satisfaction metrics; comparative regional studies contrasting adat-integrated processes with formal court RJ; and robust evaluation of the Makassar pilot model now that the Perwali has been enacted.
7. Conclusion
Indonesia’s RJ research landscape in 2024–2026 is defined by a moment of historic legal transition — the coming into force of a new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that formally institutionalise restorative values — combined with an urgent practical imperative driven by prison overcrowding and the demonstrated failure of pure retribution. The body of research is extensive but uneven: strong in normative-legal analysis, growing in empirical evaluation, and still nascent in domain-specific areas like environmental crime. The most distinctive and intellectually generative contribution of Indonesian RJ scholarship lies in its cultural work — the sustained effort to root restorative practice in Pancasila philosophy, adat traditions, and Islamic reconciliation norms, rather than treating RJ as an imported Western technology. Whether the new legal architecture can be translated into consistent frontline practice — particularly for the most vulnerable, including women, children, and indigenous communities — remains the central research and policy question for the years ahead.
References
Law and Justice in Indonesia – The Asia Foundation – Focusing on both criminal and civil law, the program champions innovative approaches such as alterna…
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS A MODEL FOR CRIMINAL … – The criminal justice system in Indonesia has long been dominated by a retributive approach that emph…
Restorative justice in Indonesian criminal law: Integrating Pancasila … – This research contributes to the discourse on RJ by demonstrating its potential to harmonize legal c…
Indonesia’s new penal codes introduce community service and … – Indonesia’s newly enacted National Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) introduc…
Indonesia enforces new penal code replacing colonial criminal law – The major innovation brought by the new criminal code is that it shifts Indonesia’s criminal system …
Indonesia | World Prison Brief – Prison population data ; 96. based on an estimated national population of 288.36 million at end of D…
Restorative Justice Reconstruction with The Indonesian … – The reform of criminal law in Indonesia through the new Criminal Code adopts the principle of Restor…
Restorative Justice Reconstruction with The Indonesian Criminal … – So it is very possible that the concept of Restorative Justice can be used as part of the reform of …
The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code Promotes Restorative Justice an… – https://borneoflash.com/2026/01/03/era-baru-hukum-acara-pidana-kuhap-2025-dorong-keadilan-restoratif…
Implementation of Restorative Justice in the Indonesian Criminal …
Copyright © 2022 Journal Equity of Law and Governance
Keadilan Restoratif : Konsep dan Pengaturannya dalam Sistem … – This study aims to explore the concept of Restorative Justice and its implementation in laws and reg…
Restorative Justice as an Alternative in the Indonesian Criminal … – This study examines in depth the application and potential of restorative justice as an alternative …
[PDF] The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Implementation in the … – This study examines the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) in Indonesia’s juvenile criminal j…
The Urgency of Reforming Law Enforcement Institutions in Handling … – This study examines the urgency of reforming law enforcement institutions in handling child offender…
Restorative Justice as a Form of Legal Protection for Children … – Restorative Justice as a Form of Legal Protection for Children Involved in Legal Cases in the Juveni…
[PDF] The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Implementation in the … – In Indonesia, the legal framework for restorative justice is reinforced through Law Number 11 of 201…
[PDF] Restorative Justice: An Alternative Approach to Addressing … – This suggests the need for a more humanist approach to handling domestic violence cases (Latumaeriss…
Komnas Perempuan: 2.7mn Gender-Based Violence Recorded in Indonesia Since 2015 – Gender-based violence has not been addressed with an appropriate gravity. Komnas Perempuan recorded …
Komnas Perempuan reports 2.5% increase in violence … – APSN – “Throughout January to December 2024, 35,533 reports of violence against women were recorded, a 2.4 …
[PDF] Resolution of Domestic Violence Criminal Cases at the Police Level … – The eligibility of such cases for restorative justice depends on whether the offense is categorized …
When will eliminating domestic violence become a priority … – Asialink – Domestic violence training for members of the judiciary is not yet mandatory or widespread across In…
Indonesia should promote restorative justice and send fewer people … – The increase means the country’s prisons are 47% over capacity, according to the Center for Detentio…
[PDF] Implementation Of Restorative Justice In Criminal Acts Of Narcotics … – Restorative justice is an alternative approach to law enforcement that focuses on restoring relation…
Comparative Analysis of Restorative Justice Approaches in … – This study explores restorative justice as outlined in Indonesian legislation, focusing on its recog…
Conceptualizing the Integration of Restorative Justice in … – This research aims to formulate a restorative justice framework for environmental crimes through the…
Restorative Environmental Law Enforcement – Indonesia faces massive pressure from environmental crimes. The environmental sector has fraud risk …
Indonesia’s new KUHP to prioritize restorative justice: minister – He disclosed that the new KUHP, which will take effect in 2026, will prioritize law enforcement thro…
Examining The Integration of Restorative Justice
Decolonising restorative justice in Indonesia: a comparative study … – These findings confirm that the constitutional integration of customary law into the national crimin…
Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif Justice Dalam Hukum Pidana Berbasis Kearifan Lokal – The study aims to analyze the application of the concept of restorative justice in the criminal just…
Integrating Religious Justice into Indonesia’s ADR Framework” by Jo … – This constitutional settlement enables the coexistence of state law, Islamic norms and indigenous cu…
Integrity Zones in Indonesian prisons: Addressing corruption amid … – Severe overcrowding in prisons: As of December 2024, Indonesia’s prison population was 273,495, near…
Shedding light on Indonesia’s criminal justice reform efforts – unodc – The event also marked the launch of the Indonesian Version of the Restorative Justice Programme Hand…
Indonesia: The Road to Restorative Justice – The Asia Foundation – Stay updated with The Asia Foundation’s latest news, program updates, stories, media releases, and t…
The Makassar City Government to Publish the Mayor’s Regulation … – The regulation is supported by the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice 2 (AIPJ2) through The…
Indonesia – The Asia Foundation – In Makassar, TAF, with the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice Phase 2, supports a restorati…
Studi Sikap Publik Terhadap Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif di Indonesia – The Asia Foundation – Access downloadable resources, studies, and academic papers on critical issues across regions and co…
