Deputy Justice Minister Explains 10-Year Trial Rule for Death Sentence Convicts
JAKARTA — Deputy Justice Minister (Wamenkum) Professor Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej has explained how Indonesia is addressing the death penalty controversy through new regulations establishing a 10-year trial period for individuals convicted to death sentences.
“This represents the Indonesian Way, a win-win solution between those who wish to retain capital punishment and those who wish to abolish it,” said Hiariej, known as Eddy, in the Constitutional Court chamber, reported by ANTARA on Monday, 9 March 2026.
In the ongoing death penalty controversy, there exist abolitionist groups opposed to capital punishment and retentionist groups supporting it.
Regarding challenges to death penalty provisions in the new criminal code under Law No. 1 of 2023, Hiariej explained that capital punishment has been modified through Law No. 1 of 2026 concerning Penalty Adjustments.
“As set out in the Constitutional Court’s 2006 decision, all death sentences shall be imposed with a trial period,” Hiariej stated.
He elaborated on the government’s rationale for imposing death sentences with a trial period, citing alignment with the national criminal code’s vision of social reintegration.
“If a death row convict has no trial period, it would not be social reintegration but rather reintegration into heaven or hell, as they would be executed immediately. However, because of social reintegration, a trial period is granted,” he explained.
When questioned about the methodology and indicators justifying the specific 10-year period, Hiariej clarified that the 10-year benchmark derives from the Constitutional Court’s ruling, not government decision.
Regarding the 10-year trial period during which the president seeks the Supreme Court’s approval on whether to commute the sentence to life imprisonment or carry out execution, Constitutional Court Chair Suhartoyo noted potential space for presidential authority abuse.
Suhartoyo requested government clarification as the legislative body on whether this context primarily involves political or judicial authority, noting that such matters should not be presented to the Supreme Court chair in a judicial context.