POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW

AND THE CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

Submitted To Complete Assignments

Criminal Law Political Course

Lecturer :

DZAKY

2022

Class : MIH Bekasi

POST GRADUATE LAW MASTER STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF LAW
BHAYANGKARA UNIVERSITY JAKARTA RAYA
2023
 CONTENTS

Cover................................................................................................................... i
CONTENTS…................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION
A. Backgrounds…………....................................................................... 1
B. Formulation of the problem................................................................ 4
C. Research Objectives and Benefits........................................................ 4
D. Research methods................................................................................ 5
DISCUSSION

A. History of the Political Development of Criminal Law in Indonesia

............................................................................................................. 5
B. Causes of the Provisions of the RUU-KUHP Rejection from the
Community………….......................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION

A. Conclusion…..................................................................................... 22
B. suggestion.................................................................................................. 22
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………............................................................................. 24
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

On June 5, 2015, the President finally issued a Presidential Letter to start

discussing the Draft Criminal Code (RUU-KUHP) between the government and
the House of Representatives (DPR). It is believed that the RUU-KUHP will
replace the existing Criminal Code which is considered a relic of the colonial
regime. There are at least three basic dogmas that the government adheres to
regarding the need to replace the Criminal Code with a new Criminal Code,
namely the principles of decolonization, reharmonization and democratization of
Indonesian criminal law. These three principles were then implemented in the
RUU-KUHP submitted by the government to the DPR.
The problem is that the RUU-KUHP actually has an extraordinary number of
provisions in which the government and DPR also do not have sufficient
experience to discuss draft legislation. In addition, the number of articles is also
large (a total of 768 articles). Therefore, special innovation is needed in discussing
the RUU-KUHP.
In its development, it is known that before the Draft Criminal Code was
passed by the President and the DPR, the Draft Criminal Code received several
protests from various groups because there were several articles that were
considered controversial in their application in society. One of them is regarding
the sixth part of the RUU-KUHP which regulates the Crime of Sedition, Careless
Care and Abuse of Animals.
The provisions for this crime are regulated in the provisions of Article 340
and in part six of the RUU-KUHP which regulates the offense of carelessness
which endangers the public, where the offense regulates.
1. Leaving animals on public roads without taking care or supervision so
that they can cause harm.
2. Leaving livestock under their care to roam the public roads.
3. Hunting and trapping animals without a permit.

1
 4. As well as criminal acts of decency (Article 341 RUU-KUHP) also
includes various deviant behaviour’s, namely committing maltreatment,
hurting and doing something that causes defects in animals, even to the
point that the animal dies for unnatural reasons.
As for the provisions of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP it states, "Convicted
of a maximum imprisonment of 6 (six) months or a maximum fine of category II,
any person who:
a. Inciting animals causes harm to people.
b. Inciting animals that are being ridden or animals that are pulling carts,
carts, or those that are burdened with goods.
c. Does not prevent animals under his care from attacking people or
animals.
d. Does not take proper care of wild animals under his care; or
e. Caring for dangerous wild animals does not report to a competent
authority.

Furthermore, in the provisions of Article 341 of the RUU-KUHP it is also stated

that,

1. Sentenced for committing animal abuse with a maximum imprisonment

of 1 (one) year or a maximum fine of category II, Everyone who:
a. Hurt or injure animals or harm their health with excess or without
proper purpose; or
b. Having sexual intercourse with animals.
2. If the act as referred to in paragraph (1) causes the animal to get sick for
more than 1 (one) week, become disabled, seriously injured, or die, the
penalty is imprisonment for a maximum of 1 (one) year and 6 (six)
months or a fine for a maximum category III.
3. If the animal as referred to in paragraph (1) belongs to the perpetrator of
the crime, the animal can be confiscated and placed in a proper place for
the animal.
The existence of the provisions of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP itself
raises pros and cons among the public, where many groups or a few parties feel

2
 worried, that if the provisions of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP are passed, of
course it will lead to the potential for criminalization, and cause divisions within
society, especially among carers. animals, both poultry and other farm animals.
These conditions certainly require further discussion, where researchers will
discuss the conditions of these problems in a paper entitled., “POLITICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW AND THE CRIMINAL LAW
SYSTEM IN INDONESIA”

Problem Formulation

Based on the formulation of the problem above, it is known that the problems to
be discussed are regarding:

1. What is the history of the political development of criminal law in Indonesia?

2. What is the reason for the rejection of the RUU-KUHP by the public?
Objectivesand Benefits of Research
1. Objectives Research
Based on the formulation of the problem above, it is known that the
Objectives of this research is:

a. To analyze the urgency in the formation and design of the Draft Criminal
Code in Indonesia.
b. To analyze the reasons for the rejection of the RUU-KUHP by the public.
2. Benefits Research
Based on the research objectives above, it is known that the benefits to be
obtained in writing this paper are:
a. Theoretical Benefits
The theoretical benefit of this research is as a scientific work for the
development of legal science in general, Law Science, and regarding the
urgency in the formation and design of the Draft Criminal Code in
Indonesia.
b. Practical Use
The practical use of this research is as a fulfillment of lecture assignments as
well as as scientific input to the formation of legal rules in the Science of

3
 Law, especially in terms of urgency in the formation and design of the Draft
Criminal Code in Indonesia, as well as the causes of the provisions of the
Articles of the RUU-KUHP get opposition from society.

Research methods
This study uses normative research methods, namely legal research that places
law as a building system of norms. The norm system in question is regarding
principles, norms, rules of law, court decisions, agreements, and doctrines
(teachings).1This form of research uses analytical descriptive, namely research that
aims to provide a detailed, systematic and comprehensive description of everything
related to the form of development of legal politics in the field of housing
procurement in Indonesia. Then the technique of collecting legal materials in this
study used library research and direct research in the field. Literature study is a
technique (procedure) of collecting or extracting library data. Bibliographical data is
data that has been documented so that bibliographical data mining does not need to be
carried out directly to the public (field).2

1Mukti Fajar ND, Dualisme Penelitian Hukum, Pustaka Pelajar : Yogyakarta, 2013. hlm. 23
2Ibid., hlm. 43.

4
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. History of the Political Development of Criminal Law in Indonesia

Historically, the legal system used before August 17, 1945 included the Dutch
East Indies legal system in the form of the western legal system (civil law) and the
original legal system (customary law). Where before Indonesia was colonized by the
Netherlands, the legal system used to resolve disputes in the community was
customary law.3
The history of Indonesian criminal law in general cannot be separated from the
existence of Indonesian society, Indonesian society which was divided into many
kingdoms, Indonesian society under Dutch colonialism and Indonesian society after
the independence period. Modern Indonesian criminal law began at the time when the
Dutch entered Indonesia, while the laws that existed and developed before or after
that lived in society without the recognition of the Dutch government were known as
customary law. During the Dutch colonial period the Dutch government attempted to
codify law in Indonesia, starting in 1830 and ending in 1840, but this legal
codification was not included in the field of criminal law. As a result of the resistance
of the Indonesian people, the spice trade, which was monopolized by the VOC
declined, resulting in the VOC going bankrupt. The fall of the VOC's image in
Europe was one of the considerations for the Dutch government to take over VOC
power by forming the Dutch East Indies government in Indonesia. At the time of the
takeover of power, the Netherlands had just regained sovereignty from the hands of
France, which during its reign was enacted by the French Penal Code. In 1870 the
Netherlands drafted a new Criminal Code. The Criminal Code was enacted on
September 1, 1886, to replace the French Penal Code. Based on the concordance
principle, the Dutch Criminal Code was also applied to the Dutch East Indies for
Europeans who were there with various changes adapted to the actual conditions in
the Dutch East Indies.4

3Rocky Marbun, Topo Santoso dan Hotma P Sibuea, Politik Hukum Pidana dan Sistem Hukum Pidana
Di Indonesia, Jakarta,Setara Pers, 2019. hlm. 8
4Hanafi Amrani, Politik Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana, UII Press, Yogyakarta, 2020. hlm.20

5
But with KoninklijkBesluit dated 12 April 1898 in Staatblad 1898 Number 30, the De
Pauly committee drafted a new Criminal Code that was specifically intended to be
applied to Europeans living in Indonesia until now. The implementation of the
Criminal Code which was to be intended for Europeans was postponed until the draft
Criminal Code for indigenous people was completed, because the Dutch government
intended to apply the two Criminal Codes at the same time. Meanwhile, the draft
Penal Code for indigenous people from Slingenberg had been completed, but later
had to be discontinued and could not be enforced because the minister of the Idenberg
colony was of the opinion that the dualism of criminal law had to be abolished. For
this purpose, a commission was formed to deal with matters that could complete its
task in 1913. The draft was later passed into law, however, the Criminal Code only
came into effect on January 1, 1918 for all groups of the population.5
At that time in the Dutch East Indies there were still several types of courts for
various groups of the population. These types of courts are the Governor's Court for
the whole of the Dutch East Indies, the Indigenous Court for areas where people are
allowed to administer their own justice, the Self-Regional Court, the Religious Court,
and the Village Court. Each of these courts is subject to different laws, including in
the field of criminal law. This created conditions which prevented the unification of
law from being held. For the Guberneman trial the Criminal Code applies, for the
Swapraja Court in accordance with the 1938 Selfbestuurregelen and the Inheems
Ordinance of 18 February 1932 customary law applies. So that this is also the basis
for valid law and the maintenance of customary law, including customary criminal
law. So there are two criminal law systems that legally apply in the Dutch East
Indies.6
The Dutch East Indies government deliberately held several judicial
arrangements with the motivation of saving state finances, given the vast area of the
Dutch East Indies. Apart from that, the regions that are allowed to operate other
courts besides the Governor's Court are areas that are not so important economically.
This situation continued until the end of the rule of the Dutch East Indies government

5Ibid., hlm. 21
6Ibid., hlm. 21-22

6
in Indonesia because of the arrival of the Japanese army, which the Indonesian people
initially viewed as 'older brothers' who would release the Indonesian nation from
colonialism, including occupation in the field of law. The dualism of criminal law in
the Dutch East Indies persists.7
In the penal code then enforced interim Airestrafbepalingen. Article 1 of this
provision stipulates that the criminal law that existed before 1848 remains in effect
and undergoes a slight change in its legal system. Even though there was already an
interimairestrafbepalingen, the Dutch government was still trying to create
codification and unification in the field of criminal law, this effort finally paid off
with the promulgation of the besluitnkoninklijk on 10 February 1866. wetboek van
strafrechvoornederlansch indie (wetboekvoor de europeanen) coordinated with the
French Penal Code which currently in effect in the Netherlands. This is what later
became Wetboek van Strafrecht or what can be called the Criminal Code (KUHP)
which is in effect today with changes made by the government of the Republic of
Indonesia.
In the era of independent Indonesia, to avoid a legal vacuum, based on Article
II of the Transitional Rules of the 1945 Constitution, all existing laws are still valid as
long as new ones have not been enacted. To fill the legal void at that time, Law
Number 1 of 1946 was enacted concerning the enactment of the criminal law
applicable in Java and Madura (based on Government Regulation No. 8 of 1946 it
also applied to the Sumatra region) and confirmed by Law Number 73 of 1958 to
apply to all regions of Indonesia to remove the dualism of Indonesian criminal law.
Thus, the criminal law that applies in Indonesia now is the Criminal Code as
stipulated under Law Number 1 of 1946 in conjunction with Law Number 73 of 1958
and its amendments, including in Law 1 of 1960 concerning changes to the Criminal
Code, Law Number 16 Prp of 1960 concerning Several Changes in the Criminal
Code, Law Number 18 Prp. Year 1960 concerning Changes in the Maximum Amount
of Fines in the Criminal Code, Law Number 4 of 1976 concerning Addition of
Provisions Regarding Air Piracy to Chapter XXIX Book II of the Criminal Code.

7Ibid., hlm. 23

7
B. Causes of the Provisions of the RUU-KUHP Rejection from the Community
Talking about the Criminal Code Bill, of course, you must also understand the
history of why the Criminal Code Bill had to be born. One of them is because the
Criminal Code, which we are still using, is already 3 centuries old. This Criminal
Code is a French Code Penal which was born in 1791, then imitated by the
Netherlands in the form of WvS (Wetboek van Strafrecht) in 1881. It was officially
valid in the Dutch East Indies in 1918 and after entering the era of independence,
based on Law No. 1 of 1946 this Criminal Code was valid in Indonesia until This
second. As a colonial product, even born from the womb of the French Penal Code in
the 17th century, of course its contents must adapt to the times, local needs, including
the values and principles contained therein. It is true that there have been adjustments
to Indonesia but they are partial, aka patchy.
Updating the Criminal Code (KUHP) is a long process. Starting from the First
National Law Seminar in 1963, efforts to reform the Criminal Code have continued
for decades to this day. Starting from the Formulation Team which alternated with
each other and even most of them had preceded us. Likewise, the style of
arrangement differs and evolves from one design to another.
In the historical records of Indonesian criminal law, Staatsblad Number 732
which was ratified in 19151 was the first rule that this country owned. The document
which is better known as Wetboek van StrafrechtvoorNederlandsch-Indie (WvS-NI)
was later adopted by Indonesia through Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning Criminal
Law Regulations. Interestingly, this regulation, which is referred to as the Criminal
Code (KUHP), does not immediately apply to all regions of Indonesia. After its
ratification in 1946, the Criminal Code was limited to the areas of Java and Madura.
It took about 12 years for this nation to expand the scope of the application of the
Criminal Code to the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia.8
However, MardjonoReksodiputro reminded that, although it has been amended
several times, the authentic text of the Criminal Code is still in Dutch considering that

8Anugerah Rizki Akbari, et. all., Membedah Konstruksi RUU KUHP, Jakarta : Sekolah Tinggi Hukum
Indonesia Jentera, 2019. hlm. 12

8
there has never been a translation that has been officially designated by the
Indonesian government as the WvS-NI translation.9
Several books of the Criminal Code translation circulating and being referred to
by academics and legal practitioners in Indonesia, such as Prof.'s translation.
Moeljatno, Prof. SatochidKartanegara, Prof. Andi Hamzah, and others, are not
translations that have been officially approved as WvSvoorNederlands-Indie
translations. 4 Under these conditions, the possibility of differences or
misinterpretations in the Indonesian text against the Dutch is very large. The absence
of this official translation and the desire to have a Criminal Code with Indonesian text
prompted the Government to review the preparation of the National Criminal Code in
1980. At that time, Prof. Soedarto formed a team at the National Legal Development
Agency (BPHN), which consisted of Prof. Oemar Seno Adji, Prof. Ruslan Saleh, and
Prof. J. E. Sahetapy, to conduct the study. 5 The results of the study which took the
form of an initiative to draft a National Criminal Code (RKUHP) were also approved
by President Soeharto. The things agreed upon by the team were not to make the
Criminal Code from scratch, but to re-do the Dutch East Indies Criminal Code, where
the "recodification" in question has a simple meaning, namely:10
1. Changing/translating Dutch texts into standard Indonesian texts that are easy
for the Indonesian people to understand.
2. Changing the system used, from three books to two books; and no longer
distinguishing between "misdrijven" (crimes) and "overtredingen"
(violations).
3. Adding and deleting articles in Book One (General Provisions) and Book
Two (Criminal Acts) and reformulating the elements of criminal acts that are
retained or added.

At the initial meetings, the team then agreed on several theories for
recodification. For Book I, several things were agreed upon, among others:11
1. Elimination of the distinction between "crimes" and "violations";
2. Use of the term "crime" for "strafbaarfeit";

9Ibid., hlm. 13
10Ibid., hlm. 14
11Ibid., hlm. 14-15

9
 3. The principle of legality is still recognized, but the applicable customary
criminal law must be given place;
4. The meaning of "dolus" and "culpa" is clarified;
5. Corporate criminal liability is included;
6. Lack of capacity to be held criminally responsible;
7. Reasons for removing the unlawful character of an act that is outside the
law are included (materiele/formelewederrechtelijkheid);
8. Establish a sanction system that adheres to a two-track system (criminal
and action);
9. Distinguish between sanctions for adult offenders (over the age of 18
years) and child offenders (children aged 12-18 years); whereas a child
who has not reached the age of twelve years cannot be held accountable
according to criminal law;
10. The category of fines will be classified and guidelines for sentencing and
guidelines for the application of imprisonment will be included.

For the recodification of book II, it was agreed that there would be several new
crimes, viz:12
1. Through Book I (principles) it is known as "customary delict" in the
formula "the enactment of a living law which determines that according to
local custom a person should be punished, even though the act is not
regulated in statutory regulations”.
2. Crime against state security from the dangers of communism, this is an
offense against the state and government.
3. Criminal acts against religion and religious life, this is an offense against
social order.
4. Criminal acts against the administration of justice, this is a "contempt of
court" offense.
5. Crime against environmental pollution, this is an offense endangering the
security of people and goods.

12Ibid., hlm. 20

10
 6. Computer crime, this can constitute "fraud by computer manipulation-
computer espionage-software piracy-computer sabotage-unauthorized
access" and in general can be categorized as "computer-related economic
crimes”.
In 1987–1993, when the Team Leader was held by MardjonoReksodiputro, it
was agreed that several principles would be included in the drafting of the National
Criminal Code, including: That criminal law is also used to affirm or re-enforce basic
social values. the behavior of social life in the unitary state of the Republic of
Indonesia which is imbued with the philosophy and ideology of the Pancasila State.
That the criminal law should only be used in situations where other means of social
control are not or cannot be expected to be effective.13
In enforcing the criminal law in accordance with the two limitations above,
efforts must be made to ensure that the method interferes with individual rights and
freedoms as minimum as possible, without reducing the protection of the collective
interests of Indonesia's modern democratic society; Because of that also, the Draft
National Criminal Code must be formulated clearly and in a language that can be
understood by the community:14
1. What actions are criminal acts, and
2. What kind of mistakes are required to provide criminal responsibility to the
perpetrators.
After completing the preparation of Book I and the explanation of article by
article in 1986, it was continued with the formulation of Book II of the Criminal Code
by combining the articles that were still relevant from the old Book III into the new
Book II. On March 13, 1993, MardjonoReksodiputro as Team Leader accompanied
by the Head of BPHN and team members submitted the complete draft of the national
RKUHP to the Minister of Justice, Ismail Saleh, at the Department of Justice,
Kuningan, South Jakarta. The drafting of the National RKUHP continued under the
Minister of Justice OetojoOesman and Director of Law and Legislation Bagir Manan
in 1993-1998. However, at this time, the National RKUHP was amended again on the
grounds that the model was not in accordance with the old standard, such as that not

13Ibid., hlm. 20
14Ibid., hlm. 21

11
all articles needed to be explained. As a result of the "disassembly" of this
explanation of the RKUHP, the RKUHP which had been prepared for 12 (twelve)
years was 'put to sleep' for 5 (five) years at the Ministry of Justice.15
In 1998, the Minister of Justice Muladi again submitted the National RKUHP to
the DPR, but at that time it failed because at that time it was not an urgent matter to
be discussed. The preparation of the National RKUHP was then continued by the next
Minister of Justice until it was finally officially handed over by President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono at the end of 2012. Discussions had been held for some time,
but were stopped because the term of office of the DPR had ended in 2014. After
going through various dynamics of discussion, the RKUHP returned and submitted
back to the DPR by President Joko Widodo on June 5, 2015 for joint discussion.16
In the elucidation of the RKUHP submitted by the Government to the DPR it
was stated that the drafting of the RKUHP no longer carries a single mission, namely
the mission of decolonizing criminal law, but also contains three other important
missions namely democratization of criminal law, consolidation of criminal law, and
adaptation and harmonization of various new developments. in the field of criminal
law. It is these four missions that the Government claims will bring new nuances in
criminal law which aim to create and uphold consistency, justice, truth, order and
legal certainty by taking into account the balance between national interests,
community interests and individual interests in the Republic of Indonesia based on
Pancasila and the Law. -The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.17
With various developments taking place in the realm of criminal law, especially
with the regulation of various principles in laws that deviate from the general
provisions of the Criminal Code, efforts to reform criminal law through the RKUHP
are a challenge in itself. More specifically, the construction of arrangements for
criminal law principles in Book 1 of the RKUHP must be structured in such a way as
to continue to refer to the fundamental principles of criminal law while
accommodating existing developments. Therefore, an academic study of the
preparation and formulation of criminal law principles in Book 1 of the RKUHP is a
must.
15Ibid., hlm. 19
16Ibid., hlm. 19-20
17Ibid., hlm. 34

12
 The spirit of the formation of the Criminal Code Bill is actually carrying out
penal reform or renewal of criminal law which in essence means an attempt to
reorient and reform criminal law in accordance with the socio-political, socio-
philosophical and socio-cultural values of Indonesian society which underlies social
policy. , criminal policies and law enforcement policies in Indonesia.
So the efforts made by the drafting team of the Criminal Code Bill which had
been initiated since 1963 in the Old Order era was to reform the Criminal Code which
was total and not partial as it had been done so far. For example, simply changing the
term guilders to rupiah, then expanding the territorial principle to include ships and
aircraft and so on. While the principles and values in it are still liberal and individual
colonial principles. It is very different from our Pancasila values which are the source
of all sources of law. Therefore the Criminal Code Bill that we want to build is a
national masterpiece of the nation's children that is in harmony with the socio-
political, socio-philosophical and socio-cultural values of Indonesian society.18
According to Muladi, as the Drafting Team for the Criminal Code Bill, since its
inception in 1963, 17 members of the drafting team have died. Already passed 13
Ministers of Justice. This means that this bill is not an arbitrary product that was
made yesterday afternoon, nor was it designed by someone who is not an expert. But
that's not to say that this is a perfect work, because there is no ivory that is not
cracked. However, rejecting the Criminal Code Bill, which seems to be all wrong,
especially because it has not been read in a comprehensive manner, also seems
unwise. The positive side of the postponement of the ratification of the Criminal
Code Bill is taken in the direction of improvement. On the other hand, it is also a
form of socialization and education that indirectly opens the public's eyes about the
regulations that will be applied to them later. However, this process does not take
much longer. So that we have the National Criminal Code and of course the
constitutional path through the Constitutional Court remains open to sue.19
In a statement from the government, implementing 6 basic principles in
deliberating the Criminal Code Bill. The six include;20

18Ibid., hlm. 35
19Ibid., hlm. 22
20Ibid., hlm. 22

13
 1. Application of the principle of passive legality. Based on this principle,
written and unwritten positive law can be applied in Indonesia so that it
does not contradict Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution as well as other
legal principles.
2. Expansion of criminal liability. Corporations can now become subjects of
criminal law so that they can be held legally responsible.
3. Application of the doctrine of ultimaremedies, namely the punishment
system is regulated with the aim of not suffering but socializing and
coaching.
4. Death penalty is now a punishment of a special nature which is always
threatened alternatively. This means that it must be threatened with life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years. In addition, it
must be regulated with special conditions or criteria in imposing capital
punishment.
5. The Criminal Code Bill is part of the recodification and arrangements for
various types of criminal acts that already exist in the Criminal Code and
other related laws. The Criminal Code Bill has adapted to the development
of modern society.
6. Arrangements for special crimes in the Draft Criminal Code are regulated
by clear and definite criteria. Categorized as a special crime, in response to
developments in technology and communication that have influenced
broader, cross-border and organized crime.
Based on this explanation, of course one can see the urgency in the formation
and design of the Draft Criminal Code in Indonesia, where the existing Criminal
Code still does not adequately accommodate every offense which has now developed
rapidly in keeping with the times. , apart from that the existing Criminal Code still
originates from the Dutch era and is still an unofficial translation, so it is feared that
there will be multiple interpretations in its application in society and among law
enforcers.
If you look at the structure and number of articles in Book I of the RKUHP, it
seems that there are quite large differences between the RKUHP and the Criminal
Code. However, on closer inspection this is not the case. The RKUHP only changes

14
the layout of the existing provisions in the current Criminal Code, with a few
additions and subtractions of material in several sections. Chapter I of the RKUHP
regarding the Scope of Applicability of the Provisions of Criminal Laws can be used
as an example to see that the material regulated in the RKUHP takes most of the
provisions of Chapter I of the Criminal Code. This chapter, which consists of 11
articles with a number of verses, basically takes Chapter I of Book I of the Criminal
Code concerning the Limits of Applicability of Criminal Rules in Laws.
It is known that based on the discussion in the previous chapter, there are
several articles in the RUU-KUHP which are viral and criticized by the public. Before
going any further, the author first conveys that the Criminal Code Bill consists of two
books, namely book one on general provisions, which has 187 articles and book two,
which deals with criminal acts, which has 627 articles. So there are 814 articles in the
Draft Criminal Code.
As for the discussion in this paper, it is known that the article that was contested
was regarding the provisions of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP which states,
"Convicted of a maximum imprisonment of 6 (six) months or a maximum fine of
Category II (a maximum fine of IDR 10 million- red), any person who does not
prevent animals under his care from attacking people or animals.
In addition to the above, animal owners will also be subject to 6 months in
prison, if:
1. Inciting animals to harm people.
2. Inciting an animal that is being ridden or an animal that is pulling a cart or
cart or one that is burdened with goods.
3. Does not take proper care of wild animals under his care; or
4. Caring for dangerous wild animals does not report to the competent
authority.
In fact, Article 341 regulates that citizens who rape livestock or have sex with
animals can also be punished, where the provisions of Article 341 of the RUU-KUHP
state that,  
1. Sentenced for committing animal abuse with a maximum imprisonment of 1
(one) year or a maximum fine of Category II, any person who:

15
 a. Hurt or injure animals or harm their health with excess or without proper
intent.
b. Having sexual intercourse with animals.
2. If the act as referred to in paragraph (1) causes the animal to get sick for
more than 1 (one) week, become disabled, seriously injured, or die, the
penalty is imprisonment for a maximum of 1 (one) year and 6 (six) months or
a fine for a maximum Category III (Rp 50 million).
3. If the animal as referred to in paragraph (1) belongs to the perpetrator of the
crime, the animal can be confiscated and placed in a proper place for the
animal.
The provisions of the Poultry Article in the Criminal Code Bill went viral
because they were considered too far-fetched. This article also exists in the current
Criminal Code. In the current Criminal Code, the 'Owl Article' is contained in
Articles 548, 549, 550. In the Criminal Code Bill, it becomes Article 278, Article 279
and Article 280. The provisions of Article 278 poultry whose livestock walk on
gardens or land that has been sown with seeds or plants belonging to other people,
shall be subject to a maximum fine of Category II (maximum Rp. 10 million)."
Then Article 279 of the RUU-KUHP states, “1. Everyone who lets their
livestock walk on the garden, grazing land, land sown with seeds or planting, or land
prepared for sowing or planting seeds shall be punished with a maximum fine of
Category II. 2. Livestock as referred to in paragraph (1) may be confiscated for the
state.”
Furthermore, the provisions of Article 280 of the RUU-KUHP state, "Convicted
with a maximum fine of Category II, Everyone who:
a. Walking or driving on the land of the nursery, planting, or prepared therefor
which belongs to another person; or
b. Without the right to walk or drive on land where the owner is prohibited from
entering or has been given a clear entry ban.
In fact, it is known that the regulation problem is not making it up, but this
often happens in the scope of people who live in agricultural and plantation areas,
where this can be seen in the Supreme Court (MA) decision files. One of them was in
Asahan Regency, North Sumatra. In this case, a herd of oxen owned by Toro Irwandi

16
entered the plantation area of a company on November 15, 2014. The oxen ate the
leaves and stems of the rubber seedlings that had just been planted.21
As a result of the cows eating the plant seeds, the company suffered losses. Of
course the company did not accept this and reported Toro to the PrapatJanji Police.
Toro as the owner is subject to Article 549 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. This
article reads: Whoever without authority lets his livestock walk in the garden, in the
meadow, or in the grass field or on dry pasture, whether on land that has been sown,
dug up or planted or which is ready to be sown, dug up or planted or the result of has
not been taken, or is on land that belongs to another person, which is prohibited from
entering by those entitled to entry and has been marked with a clear prohibition
against the violator, shall be punished by a maximum fine of three hundred and
seventy five rupiahs (converted at today's exchange rate of Rp. 375,000).22
After being proven in court, the judge found Toro guilty for allowing his animal
to walk in the garden, by a person who had the right to prohibit entry by having been
given a clear prohibition sign for the violator. "Imposed a sentence on the defendant
therefore with a fine of Rp. 300 thousand, with the stipulation that if the fine is not
paid by the defendant it is replaced by a prison sentence of 3 days," said single judge
Lusiana Amping on 28 November 2014.23
In his consideration the judge said that the actions of the Defendant who did not
supervise the herding of his oxen caused losses to the witness-victim. As for the
reasons for the regulation of the article regarding poultry and livestock, this is still
regulated in the RUU-KUHP because in Indonesia there are still many villages, many
people are still agrarian farmers, people who make rice fields, and it is not uncommon
for parties with bad intentions, related to community activities in managing rice fields
and plantations so that sometimes they put several types of animals that can become
pests for agricultural and plantation plants.
In fact, the cause of the rejection and conflict from the public regarding the
enactment of articles that are considered controversial in the RUU-KUHP, including

21Supriyadi Widodo Eddyono, Miko S. Ginting , dan Anggara,Mengawal Pembahasan RUU-KUHP :

dari Evaluasi ke Rekomendasi, Jakarta : ICJR, 2019. hlm. 79
22Ibid., hlm. 80
23Ibid., hlm. 81

17
regarding the enactment of provisions regarding negligence in the care of animals, is
known to be due to several problems as follows:
1. Lack of government studies regarding the provision of information in
articles that are considered quite controversial, such as in Article 340 ofthe
RUU-KUHP, where provision of information from the provisions of Article
340 of the RUU-KUHP only provides the following information:
“Letter a : What is meant by "inciting the animal" is making the animal
react in panic so that it causes the animal to be aggressive, causing anxiety,
fear in the animal which can endanger humans, animal sand goods
Letter b : Self-explanatory.
Letter c : Self-explanatory.
Letter d : Self-explanatory.
Provision of information on the elements contained in an article is of cours
every, very important, especially an explanation of the situation, conditions,
and qualifications of the article in question, so that the article does not
experience mistakes in its application due to multiple interpretations, as
well as misinterpretations. This explanation is also of cours every, very
important for the community, because an explanation of the situation,
conditions, and qualifications, as well as the legal consequence so applying
an article, can certainly dispel people's concerns.
2. Lack of out reach from the government to the public in providing an
understanding to the public regarding the legislative products to be issued
and ratified by the government, where the government certainly needs to
provide an explanation and understanding to the public regarding every
regulation that is to be made, designed, drafted, and ratified by the
government, so that the existence of regulations will create peace in society,
and eliminate the emergence of bad intentions from some parties who want
to commit violations or crimes against something regulated in regulations
made by the government, and not havetheoppositeeffect, such as the
emergence of fears of fear of criminalization of society.
This is where the government should provide out reach to the public, that
the application of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP cannot be applied

18
haphazardly, because of course there are several legal principles that limit
the application of the provisions of Article 340, where these legal principles
apply as requirements for the application of all articles contained in the
RUU-KUHP, including in theApplicationofArticle 340 ofthe RUU-KUHP.
Apart from that, for the occurrence of criminalization, of course, it can be
minimized, because the process of proving the offenses contained in the
RUU-KUHP, of course, must go through various procedures, such as
procedures, investigations, prosecutions and examinations in court, so that
not all actions can be subject to criminal offenses. The governmental so
needs to provide information regarding non-litigation legal measures that
can be taken by the public, especially regarding offenses such as in Article
340 of the RUU-KUHP, where against this offense, not only criminal
measures can be applied, but also before the occurrence of punishment, the
parties can carry out non-litigation efforts as analternative to dispute
resolution, so that even if there is a violation of the offense in the RUU-
KUHP, the sentencing effort is the final solution, not the initial solution or
the decisive solution, in upholding the law and as an effort to maintain order
and security in society.
3. The emergence of interested parties who want to take advantage of the
situation and condition so the lack of clarity in a regulation, such as in the
RUU-KUHP, it is suspected that there are several parties who want to take
advantage of the lack of clarity in the provisions of the RUU-KUHP andthe
lack of public knowledge regarding the RUU-KUHP due to lack of out
reach from the government. This is of course not spared from the existence
of several parties who wish to take advantage of the situation and conditions
of the weakness of the draft Criminal Code Bill, where in every protest that
arises, it is not uncommon to find elements who wish to take advantage of a
social movement and the ignorance of the public, for the benefit of personal
and group.
4. There is a perspective in the community that the provisions of the
Articles in the RUU-KUHP, especially regarding the provisions of Article
340 of the RUU-KUHP, seem far-fetched.

19
 Based on this explanation, it can be seen that the cause of the rejection of the
passage of the RUU-KUHP, especially regarding the provisions of Article 340 of the
RUU-KUHP, which received opposition from the public, was due to the lack of
government studies regarding the provision of information in articles which were
considered quite controversial, as in Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP. Criminal Code,
as well as the lack of socialization from the government in informing the public about
the procedures for enactment of the RUU-KUHP, causing anxiety in the community
regarding the potential for criminalization of people who have pets such as poultry,
house pets, and livestock, as well as the impression that Article 340 The RUU-KUHP
is far-fetched.
According to the researcher's opinion, this is where the government should
provide outreach to the community, that the application of Article 340 of the RUU-
KUHP cannot be applied haphazardly, because of course there are several legal
principles that limit the application of the provisions of Article 340, where the
principles the law applies as a condition for the entry into force of all articles
contained in the RUU-KUHP, including in the Application of Article 340 of the
RUU-KUHP. Apart from that, for the occurrence of criminalization, of course, it can
be minimized, because the process of proving the offenses contained in the RUU-
KUHP, of course, must go through various procedures, such as procedures,
investigations, prosecutions and examinations in court, so that not all actions can be
subject to criminal offenses. The government also needs to provide information
regarding non-litigation legal measures that can be taken by the public, especially
regarding offenses such as in Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP, where against this
offense, not only criminal measures can be applied, but also before the occurrence of
punishment, the parties can carry out non-litigation efforts as an alternative to dispute
resolution, so that even if there is a violation of the offense in the RUU-KUHP, the
sentencing effort is the final solution, not the initial solution or the decisive solution,
in upholding the law and as an effort to maintain order and security in society.

20
 CHAPETER III
CONCLUSION

A. Conclusion
1. The urgency in the formation and design of the Draft Criminal Code in
Indonesia, where the existing Criminal Code still does not adequately
accommodate every offense which has now developed rapidly following the
times, in addition to the Criminal Code -The existing Criminal Law Act still
originates from the Dutch era and is still an unofficial translation, so it is feared
that there will be multiple interpretations in its application in society and
among law enforcers.
2. The reason for the rejection of the ratification of the RUU-KUHP, especially
regarding the provisions of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP which received
opposition from the public, was due to the lack of government studies
regarding the provision of information in articles that were considered quite
controversial, such as in Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP, as well as the lack of
socialization from the government in informing the public about the
procedures for the enactment of the RUU-KUHP, causing unrest in the
community regarding the potential for criminalization of people who have pets
such as poultry, house pets, and livestock, as well as the impression that
Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP making it up.
B. Suggestion
1. In the future it is hoped that the government in forming a statutory regulation
will pay special attention to the importance of providing information on the
elements contained in an article, of course it is very, very important, especially
an explanation of the situation, conditions and qualifications of the article in
question, so that the article in its application, there are no mistakes caused by
multiple interpretations or misinterpretations. This explanation is also of
course very, very important for the community, because an explanation of the
situation, conditions, and qualifications, as well as the legal consequences of
applying an article, can certainly dispel people's concerns.

21
2. In the future, it is hoped that the government will provide socialization to the
public, that the application of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP cannot be applied
haphazardly, because of course there are several legal principles that limit the
application of the provisions of Article 340, where these legal principles
applies as a condition for the entry into force of all articles contained in the
RUU-KUHP, including in the application of Article 340 of the RUU-KUHP.
Apart from that, for the occurrence of criminalization, of course, it can be
minimized, because the process of proving the offenses contained in the RUU-
KUHP, of course, must go through various procedures, such as procedures,
investigations, prosecutions and examinations in court, so that not all actions
can be subject to criminal offenses. The government also needs to provide
information regarding non-litigation legal measures that can be taken by the
public, especially regarding offenses such as in Article 340 of the RUU-
KUHP, where against this offense, not only criminal measures can be applied,
but also before the occurrence of punishment, the parties can carry out non-
litigation efforts as an alternative to dispute resolution, so that even if there is a
violation of the offense in the RUU-KUHP, the sentencing effort is the final
solution, not the initial solution or the decisive solution, in upholding the law
and as an effort to maintain order and security in society.
3.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Legislation
Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun
1945
Republik Indonesia, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana
Republik Indonesia, RancanganUndang-Undang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum
Pidana
B. Books
Anugerah Rizki Akbari, et. all., Membedah Konstruksi RUU KUHP, Jakarta :
Sekolah Tinggi Hukum Indonesia Jentera, 2019.

Hanafi Amrani, Politik Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana, UII Press, Yogyakarta,

2020.

Mukti Fajar ND, Dualisme Penelitian Hukum, Pustaka Pelajar : Yogyakarta,

2013.

Supriyadi Widodo Eddyono, Miko S. Ginting , dan Anggara, Mengawal

Pembahasan RUU-KUHP : dari Evaluasi ke Rekomendasi, Jakarta :
ICJR, 2019.

Rocky Marbun, Topo Santoso dan Hotma P Sibuea, Politik Hukum Pidana dan
Sistem Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia, Jakarta, Setara Pers, 2019.

23