Judicial Formalism in Evaluating Voluntary Confessions: Reducing Non-Derogable Rights in Trial Proceedings Post-2025 Criminal Procedure Code
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2026.17.153-172Keywords:
human rights, criminal procedure code, guilty plea, torture, court decisionsAbstract
The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) introduces a defendant's confession mechanism in court proceedings as stipulated in Article 205, that requires Judges to assess six elements before diverting the examination to a summary proceeding, including the element that the confession was not caused by pressure, coercion, or torture during the investigation and prosecution process. Textually, this provision aligns with Article 33 of Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights and Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture. However, its examination mechanism relies on court proceedings based on case files produced by the very authorities whose conduct is being scrutinized. This article aims to analyze the normative construction of such guarantees and examine the extent to which their application in district court decisions post-enactment of the new CPC reflects a substantive examination. This research employs a normative juridical method, analyzing district court decisions that apply Article 205 of the CPC available in the Supreme Court Decision Directory, utilizing a formal-substantive indicator framework developed by the author. The analysis of the six available decisions reveals that two decisions completely lack explicit consideration of the freedom-from-coercion element; three decisions merely state that all requirements are met without outlining the underlying basis (formal); one decision explicitly mentions the element but lacks supporting evidentiary descriptions (semi-formal); and not a single decision demonstrates a substantive examination. This article is expected to contribute to filling the literature gap, which has predominantly focused on the normative construction of guilty pleas without examining judicial practices, while simultaneously offering an analytical framework to monitor the implementation of similar provisions in the future.
Downloads
References
Aisah Abdullah, Sitti, Oheo Kaimuddin Haris, Ali Rizky, dan Yosep Tabilino. “Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Tersangka atas Perlakuan Sewenang-wenang dalam Penyidikan Melalui Hak Tidak Menjawab Legal Protection of Suspects Against Arbitrary Treatment in Investigations Through the Right Not to Answer.” Halu Oleo Legal Research 6, no. 1 (2024): 122–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33772/holresch.v6i1.748.
Alimuddin, Alimuddin, Muh Zuhud Al-Khaer Zahir, Muh Firdaus Rasyid, dan Muh Fichriyadi Hastira. “Plea Bargaining dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana Negara Indonesia.” Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 2 (2024): 418–30. https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v8i2.9213.
Azryal, Rayhan. “Implementasi Pengakuan Bersalah (Plea Bargaining) Dalam Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2025 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana Dalam Tujuan Pemidanaan di Indonesia.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik 6, no. 4 (2026): 3208–17. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v6i4.8520.
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 27 The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Compilation of Human Rights Instruments 445 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047412878_047.
Cook, Julian A. Federal Guilty Pleas: Inequities, Indigence and the Rule 11 Process. University of Georgia School of Law, t.t. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/1282.
Gunowo, Salis. “Model Plea Bargaining pada Sistem Penuntutan Indonesia dalam Perspektif Jaksa.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Sosial (HAKIM) 3, no. 4 (2025): 1372–86.
Haeranah, Haeranah, Hijrah Adhyanti Mirzana, Andi Muhammad Aswin Anas, dkk. “The Concept of Plea Bargain in the Criminal Process System in Indonesia.” Law Reform 21, no. 1 (2025): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.66764.
Henin Dyah Syafrina, Slamet Sudi Illahi, Bintang Pramadhani Hariadi Putra, dan Naura Tsurayya Hasnaa. “Model Pengaturan Plea Bargaining Dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia.” Jurnal USM Law Review 9, no. 1 (2026): 361–80. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v9i1.13391.
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, dan Sarah E. Shannon. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15, no. 9 (2005): 1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). 10 Maret 1992. U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994), 30.
Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. 26 Mei 2004.
Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32: Article 14, Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32. 23 Agustus 2007.
Husin, Nabilla Callosa, dan Naylla Shabilla Callistha Husin. “Plea Bargaining as a Reform in Criminal Procedure Law: An Analysis of Article 199 of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code.” Ius Poenale 5, no. 1 (2024): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v5i1.3486.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 26 May 2004 (2004).
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. PT. Kharisma Putra Utama, 2017.
Matthew, B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, dan Johnny Saldaña. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed. 3 ed. SAGE.
Mahkamah Agung. Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung. September 2026. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/.
Packer, Herbert L. “Two Models of the Criminal Process.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 113, no. 1 (1964): 1–68.
Pebrianto, Roli, Noviana Noviana, dan Muhamad Panji Prabu Dharma. “Eksistensi Asas Non Self-Incrimination dalam Praktik Plea Bargaining.” Referendum: Jurnal Hukum Perdata dan Pidana 3, no. April (2026). https://doi.org/10.62383/referendum.v3i2.1667.
Picaesa, Annisa Diva, dan Ferdita Abigael. “Konstruksi Normatif Pengakuan Bersalah dalam KUHAP Terbaru: Adaptasi Mekanisme Common Law dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Jurnal Legalitas 4, no. 1 (2026): 43–53. https://doi.org/10.58819/jle.v4i1.238.
Prasetyo, K. M. M. Gusti, Syarif Saddam Rivanie, Muhammad Said Karim, dan Birkah Latif. “The Paradigm of Meaningful Guilty Pleas: Balancing Procedural Efficiency and Substantive Justice in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System.” SIGn Journal of Social Science 6, no. 2 (2026): 255–71. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjss.v6i2.568.
Ramadhan, Andhika Gilang, dan Dara Puspitasari. “Pengakuan Bersalah di Tangan Penyidik: Validitas Pasal 7ayat 1 Huruf MKUHAP 2025 dalam Uji HAM.” Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum 4, no. 2 (2026): 2300–2310.
Rhea, Esther, dan Sophie Lontoh. “Efektivitas Kuhap Dalam Menjamin Hak Tersangka Hukum Acara Pidana the Effectiveness of the Kuhap in Guaranteing the Rights of Suspects in Criminal Procedure Law.” Jurnal Intelek dan Cendekiawan Nusantara (JICN) 2, no. November (2025): 9520–30.
Seraphinus Mariano Agung Serman dan Umi Rozah. “Regulation of Plea Bargaining Policy as a Novelty in Criminal Justice System to Create Effective and Efficient Criminal Law Enforcement: A Study of Ruu Kuhap.” Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities 5, no. 4 (2025): 2304–15. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v5i4.1454.
Simatupang, Patricia Marscelline, dan Vita Mahardhika. “Analisis Yuridis Pengaturan Pengakuan Bersalah (Plea Bargaining) Dalam Kuhap Dan Perbandingan Dengan Negara Amerika Serikat.” Indonesian Journal of Contemporary Law 5, no. 2 (2023): 190–95.
Sirjon, Lade, La Ode Muhamad Sulihin, dan Yan Fathahillah Purnama. “Perbandingan Mekanisme Pengakuan Bersalah Pada Jalur Khusus dalam RUU KUHAP dan Konsep Plea Bargaining Ditinjau dari Asas Non-Self Incrimination.” Halu Oleo Law Review 7, no. 2 (2023): 224–35. https://doi.org/10.33561/holrev.v7i2.29.
Soekanto, S. Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penegakan Hukum. Rajawali, 2008. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=BK2aHAAACAAJ.
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (1945).
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2025 Nomor 188 (2025).
Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 165 (1999).
Yesica Fayarinda Hapsari, Fajar Ari Sudewo, dan Imam Asmarudin. “Rekonstruksi Mekanisme Plea Bargaining (Pengakuan Bersalah) pada Tahap Penuntutan sebagai Instrumen Efisiensi Peradilan Pidana dalam Pembaharuan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia.” Jurnal Yudistira: Publikasi Riset Ilmu Pendidikan dan Bahasa 4, no. 3 (2026): 83–92. https://doi.org/10.61132/yudistira.v4i3.2936.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Antok Kurniyawan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copyright of each article is retained by the author(s). Authors agree to grant the first publication rights to Jurnal HAM. The Journal embeds a simple machine-readable Creative Commons license under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Thus, papers in this Journal can be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the acknowledgment of authorship and publication in this journal.
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
