Questioning the Cassation Appeal Against Acquittal Verdict Following the New Criminal Procedure Code

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – The cassation appeal filed by the public prosecutor in the August 2025 incitement demonstration case against Delpedro Marhaen and three other activists, who have been acquitted, has triggered a legal debate. This is because Article 299 Paragraph (2) letter a of the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which comes into effect in 2026, states that cassation cannot be filed against an acquittal decision. “The filing of a cassation examination cannot be carried out against an acquittal decision,” said criminal law expert from Trisakti University, Albert Aries, to Kompas.com on Tuesday (7/4/2026). According to him, this provision is firm and applies to all types of criminal offences without exception, including corruption cases. Thus, for any acquittal decision, including in corruption offences, the legal remedy of cassation is no longer available. Albert acknowledges that the potential for errors in first-instance court decisions remains a real issue in judicial practice. However, he states that this cannot be used as a reason to reopen the space for cassation, which has been explicitly closed by the law. In this context, he also views the old debate regarding the classification of “pure acquittal” and “non-pure acquittal” as no longer relevant to revive, because the new KUHAP no longer provides room for such distinction in relation to legal remedies. As an alternative, Albert opines that the more appropriate mechanism to challenge an acquittal decision is through the appeal process. By opening the avenue for appeals against acquittals, the high court can re-examine not only legal aspects but also the facts revealed in the trial, thus avoiding the absolute application of res judicata solely at the first-instance court level. Albert does not deny that there are transitional provisions in the new KUHAP that are used as the basis by the prosecutor to file cassation against the acquittal of Delpedro and his colleagues. Nevertheless, according to him, the application of norms from such transitional procedural law should, as much as possible, adhere to the lex mitior principle, namely the rule that the provision most favourable to the suspect, defendant, or convict must be prioritised. In other words, if there are two applicable legal regimes that cause uncertainty, the choice must fall on the rule that is more beneficial to the suspect, defendant, and convict.