Synchronisation of Election Law and New Criminal Code: Criminal Sanctions Become Ultimum Remedium
The government has asserted that the synchronisation of electoral criminal law with the new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) brings a major paradigm shift, placing criminal sanctions as an ultimum remedium, or last resort. This means law enforcement officials must prioritise administrative sanctions before applying criminal law in election violations.
Deputy Minister of Law, Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, explained that the changes to criminal provisions in elections are not regulated directly in the KUHP, but through Law No. 1/2026 on Criminal Adjustments. This law is mandated by Article 613 of the new KUHP to harmonise various sectoral regulations.
“The changes are not in the KUHP or KUHAP, but in the Criminal Adjustment Law. Reading the KUHP must be one package with that law,” Eddy Hiariej said at the Bawaslu RI office in Jakarta on Monday (29/6).
These changes cover Articles 488 to 553 of the Election Law, which include the elimination of imprisonment and the replacement of nominal fines with a category system. Eddy stressed that, based on Article 613 paragraph (3), law enforcement must prioritise administrative sanctions because the Election Law is fundamentally an administrative law supplemented with criminal sanctions.
Beyond the aspect of sanctions, the new KUHAP also strengthens coordination between investigators and prosecutors from the outset of an investigation. This concept adopts the working pattern of the Integrated Law Enforcement Centre (Gakkumdu), which has been operating in handling election cases.
In terms of evidence, there is an expansion from five to eight types of admissible evidence. The new KUHAP now recognises electronic evidence, physical evidence, and real evidence as valid forms of proof, provided they are obtained legally. The term “clues” has also been replaced with “judge’s observations”.
“Anything can be used as evidence as long as it is obtained legally. This is an important development in proving election crimes in the future,” Eddy concluded.