Supreme Court Candidate Highlights Disparity in Appeals Against Acquittals

Prospective Supreme Court justice for the Criminal Chamber, Sudharmawatiningsih, has spoken about the practice of appealing against acquittals, which continues to give rise to differing interpretations. She revealed that of 20 appeal cases against acquittals studied, 15 were declared inadmissible.

Sudharmawatiningsih made the remarks while undergoing a fit and proper test for Supreme Court justice candidates at the House of Representatives (DPR) building in Senayan, Jakarta, on Wednesday (12/8/2026). She said the research was conducted at the Supreme Court.

“In judicial practice, based on research at the Supreme Court in which we happened to be involved, of 20 appeal cases against acquittals, 15 were decided as inadmissible,” she said.

“For the remaining five appeals against acquittals, the High Court accepted the public prosecutor’s appeal, overturned the District Court’s ruling and adjudicated the case itself,” she continued.

She said this situation demonstrates the existence of two models of legal application in judicial practice. In her view, this creates disparity in interpretation.

“This is what then gives rise to disparity in interpretation. So in practice, we learn from the timeline regarding the evolution of legal policy on acquittals,” she said.

Sudharmawatiningsih then touched on provisions in the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). She said Article 299 paragraph (2) letter a of the KUHAP explicitly closes the cassation avenue against acquittals.

“The lawmakers, in fact, this also relates to the lawmakers and philosophical reasons. The closure of cassation as a legal remedy against acquittals actually contains legal certainty. So we see that philosophically, the existence of Article 299 paragraph (2) letter a strengthens legal certainty,” she explained.

She also assessed that closing cassation against acquittals could reduce the flow of cases at the Supreme Court level. According to her, this would allow the Supreme Court to focus more on handling cases with important and fundamental issues.

“It positions the Supreme Court as the guardian of uniformity in the application of law. So the Supreme Court is no longer seen as a court that re-examines facts, but rather the Supreme Court will concentrate on rulings that have important or fundamental issues,” she explained.

Furthermore, Sudharmawatiningsih assessed that acquittals are closely related to the protection of human rights. According to her, an acquittal must provide legal certainty for the defendant.

“An acquittal is actually also a means of legal protection through legal restoration and a form of human rights protection that is absolutely received by the defendant, also serving to restore their dignity, standing and honour,” she said.

Therefore, Sudharmawatiningsih said there is a reconstruction of the meaning of public interest in criminal acquittal cases. She said that if an acquittal is issued, it will encourage judges to be professional and careful.

“So it is inherent that with an acquittal, judges, law enforcement officials especially judges, will be encouraged to be careful, to consider matters seriously and be supported by responsible professionalism,” she said.