Publication Search

This study examines legal deviations in the implementation of the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) mechanism, specifically regarding the approval of a peace settlement submitted for the second time after the debtor is declared bankrupt. The study highlights the Supreme Court Decision No. 648K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021, which ratified the second peace settlement in the case of PT Prospek Duta Sukses. This decision is deemed contradictory to the principle of a single peace settlement, as stipulated in Articles 289 and 292 of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU, and further reinforced by Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 5 of 2021, which states that a peace settlement in bankruptcy can only be conducted once. Using a normative juridical method, this research analyzes the legal reasoning used by the panel of judges in approving the second peace settlement and evaluates its impact on legal certainty and protection for creditors, who are the affected parties in the bankruptcy process. The approval of a second peace settlement after the debtor is declared bankrupt creates legal uncertainty, as the existing provisions do not provide for more than one peace settlement. Additionally, this decision potentially harms creditors by prolonging the settlement of debts, which should have been clear, thus allowing room for misuse of legal procedures. The findings of the study show that the approval of this second peace settlement not only contradicts the fundamental principles of law but also risks harming creditors, who should be protected by the bankruptcy system to ensure their rights are fairly met. Therefore, this research suggests that consistent application of the law, in line with existing provisions, is necessary to uphold the principles of justice, legal certainty, and the credibility of the national bankruptcy system. Furthermore, reforms in regulations or law enforcement are needed to ensure that legal practices operate in accordance with principles that are fair and transparent.

This study aims to analyze and describe the regulation of furniture business permits in Alak District, Manutapen Village, Kupang City, within the framework of regional and national legal provisions. Business permits are a vital aspect of legality, providing legal certainty and protection for entrepreneurs. Despite this importance, many wooden furniture businesses continue to operate without official permits. Several factors contribute to this issue, including limited knowledge of regulatory requirements, inadequate access to facilities and administrative services, and the perception among entrepreneurs that small-scale businesses do not necessarily require permits. This research adopts an empirical approach, employing semi-structured interviews with local furniture business owners who have not yet obtained permits. The findings reveal that although the government has made efforts to disseminate information and promote the importance of business permits, these initiatives have not been fully effective. Many entrepreneurs remain unaware of the legal obligations and the potential benefits that permits can provide, such as protection against legal disputes and opportunities for broader business development. The study further identifies both positive and negative impacts of the furniture industry in the local community. On the positive side, furniture businesses significantly contribute to household income, create new job opportunities, and foster creativity through innovative craftsmanship. On the negative side, they also cause environmental issues such as waste and pollution, reduce agricultural land due to the expansion of workshops, and influence lifestyle changes within the community. Based on these findings, the study concludes that the government must strengthen its role by enhancing outreach and education programs, simplifying the permit application process, and providing better support services to entrepreneurs. Additionally, active participation from business owners is crucial to ensure compliance with legal frameworks and to achieve a sustainable balance between economic growth, social welfare, and environmental preservation.

This study examines the legal liability of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) before and after bankruptcy, with a focus on the roles of the board of directors, board of commissioners, and the curator appointed by the Commercial Court. Prior to bankruptcy, the liability for the company's obligations rests primarily with the board of directors and the board of commissioners, especially when debts arising from binding agreements remain unpaid. In situations where the company is unable to fulfill its payment obligations, and such inability is confirmed by a final court ruling, responsibility for managing and settling the company’s debts and assets is transferred to a court-appointed curator. The research analyzes the legal framework governing the curator’s authority, which operates under the supervision of a supervisory judge from the Commercial Court. The curator acts as the sole party responsible for handling the bankrupt entity’s obligations to creditors, ensuring compliance with applicable bankruptcy laws. This study uses a normative juridical approach, relying on legislation, case law, and legal doctrine to examine the extent of responsibility at each stage of the bankruptcy process. Special attention is given to the legal considerations of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court in Decisions Number 34/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst and Number 38/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst. Both rulings are found to be appropriate, as they meet the legal requirements for declaring an LLC bankrupt based on verified facts and circumstances. The findings underscore the importance of distinguishing between pre-bankruptcy liabilities—borne by company management—and post-bankruptcy responsibilities, which are entirely managed by the appointed curator. This clear allocation of responsibility ensures creditor protection, maintains judicial oversight, and upholds the principles of fairness and legal certainty in bankruptcy proceedings

One example of a case of falsified documents in the issuance of overlapping land certificates occurred in East Luwu Regency and was raised in court through Decision Number 90/Pid.B/2020/PN MII. In this case, it was discovered that land certificate falsification was carried out by a land mafia, resulting in the emergence of two certificates for the same plot of land. This practice not only harms the legitimate owner but also creates laws and gives rise to complex agrarian conflicts. This research uses a normative juridical method, with an approach based on laws and court decisions. The results show that the preservation was an intentional act carried out by one party, with the aim of controlling land rights that did not belong to him. In the decision, the perpetrator was found guilty and sentenced because it was also proven to have falsified documents, as stipulated in Article 263 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). From this case, it can be concluded that law enforcement against overlapping duplicate certificates is very important to ensure legal certainty and protection. Protection efforts for land rights holders are carried out through a land registration process that complies with procedures based on Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning the Principles of Agrarian Law. Compliance with these procedures can provide a strong basis for identifying legitimate rights holders and preventing future damage, including cases of overlapping certificates caused by document falsification. To prevent the recurrence of similar cases, it is necessary to improve the monitoring system and digitize land data comprehensively by the National Land Agency (BPN). An integrated digital-based land system can minimize the opportunity for the issuance of duplicate certificates for a single plot of land, because all land rights data can be accessed and disclosed transparently and in real time.

Punitive populism is a political-legal phenomenon that replaces legal rationality and corrective justice with a rhetoric of power that negates the protection of human rights and the rehabilitative function of the criminal justice system. In this context, criminal policy tends to be characterized by a repressive approach that prioritizes symbolic punishment for short-term political legitimacy. Social polarization further strengthens the destructive power of punitive populism by making the issue of crime a symbolic instrument in identity conflicts, thereby losing its autonomy and submitting to an emotional, majoritarian logic. This study aims to analyze how punitive populism, as a product of the interaction between populist logic and social polarization, results in the erosion of the basic values of modern law, particularly the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and human rights protection. Furthermore, this study also identifies structural barriers that hinder efforts to curb its expansion in criminal policy. The study uses qualitative methods with a conceptual approach. Data were obtained through library research of academic literature, legal documents, and policy analysis, then processed using qualitative analysis techniques and presented descriptively. The research findings show that punitive populism has shifted the orientation of criminal policy from a paradigm of justice and rehabilitation to a logic of punishment that is reactive to public emotional distress. The mass media, particularly within a polarized information ecosystem, plays a role in shaping distorted perceptions of crime, thereby reinforcing public demands for harsh and immediate policies. This situation creates legal vulnerability to political instrumentalism, threatens the principle of the rule of law, and deepens social exclusion of vulnerable groups. To address this, strategic steps are needed, including limiting fear-based political rhetoric, strengthening independent legal institutions, and rebuilding a criminal law paradigm based on substantive justice, inclusivity, and respect for human rights.

Advances in digital technology have brought significant changes to various aspects of life, including socio-economic activities such as arisan (social gathering). Arisan, which was previously conducted conventionally, has now begun to transform into online arisan. This change offers several advantages, including ease of access, reduced time constraints, and a wider range of participation. However, behind this convenience, an equally important challenge lies the lack of regulation and oversight of online arisan practices, which are prone to legal threats. This study aims to examine the urgency of creating written agreements in the implementation of online arisan and examine their legal force as a form of legal protection for the actors, both organizers and members. Using a normative juridical method through a regulatory-statutory approach and case studies, this study emphasizes the importance of legal validity in civil relations formed through online arisan. Data were obtained through observation, interviews, and documentation, which were then analyzed through a process of data reduction, presentation, and drawing conclusions. The results of the study indicate that written agreements in online arisan have legally binding force as long as they meet the requirements for a valid agreement according to Article 1320 of the Civil Code. The existence of a written agreement can increase legal certainty, strengthen the legal standing of the parties, and serve as valid evidence in the event of a breach of contract. Therefore, creating a written agreement is crucial to avoid losses and strengthen legal protection in online arisan (social savings and credit) practices. Furthermore, a written agreement also reflects the good faith of the parties in carrying out their commitments professionally and responsibly. This serves as an important foundation for building trust and creating a transparent and accountable online arisan system. Therefore, it is recommended that every online arisan participant create a clear written agreement and have it notarized to strengthen its legality.

The rise of online loans (commonly known as pinjol) reflects the broader transformation of conventional financial systems into digital platforms, influenced heavily by the rapid development of financial technology (fintech). While online loans offer ease and accessibility, their implementation has raised significant legal concerns—particularly relating to the violation of privacy and the rights of third parties who are not directly involved in the loan agreement. One of the main legal issues occurs during the debt collection process, where third parties—often relatives, colleagues, or acquaintances of debtors—are subjected to intimidation, unlawful dissemination of personal data, and public defamation. These practices are not only unethical but also infringe on the privacy and dignity of uninvolved individuals. This article employs a legal research method using a normative approach. As a normative legal study, it analyzes laws, regulations, and legal literature relevant to the problem. The study finds that current legal regulations do not adequately protect third parties from the harmful practices associated with online loan collections. In response, there is a pressing need for regulatory reform. This includes strengthening personal data protection laws, enhancing supervision mechanisms over fintech companies, and ensuring that legal standards are consistently enforced. Reformulating these regulations will help address the legal vacuum and ensure greater legal certainty and protection for all individuals affected by online loan transactions. Through comprehensive policy changes and stronger enforcement, the negative impact of online loans can be mitigated, safeguarding both borrowers and uninvolved third parties.

The role of Mataf (Mamar Guardians) Manufua in Sillu Village, Fatuleu District is a problem that impacts various aspects including customs and governance, legal certainty, and social stability of the local community, as well as mamar ownership. In this context, the role of mataf is very important to ensure comfort for mamar owners. This study was conducted based on the consideration that the role of mataf in Sillu Village has almost disappeared, causing misuse in utilizing natural resources from mamar that are not by their owners. In addition, this study was conducted to build the potential of human resources in Sillu Village in understanding the importance of the role of mataf in maintaining mamar. Based on the description above, the role of mataf in maintaining mamar needs to be studied using empirical legal research. The main problem in this study is how the role of mataf guards mamar Manufua in Sillu Village, Fatuleu District. Data collection techniques used were observation, interviews and literature studies. The results of the study indicate that the role of mataf in maintaining mamar in Sillu Village, Fatuleu District is quite good with the presence of guarding from mataf. Mataf are able to provide information on various events occurring within the mamar area, from harvesting mamar crops, irrigation of mamar fields, security, and collecting scattered mamar crops in one location so that mamar owners can easily identify them when collecting their Manufua mamar crops. The results of this study indicate a positive role or positive outcomes of the mataf's role in safeguarding mamar. Therefore, it is recommended that students, especially university students, or scientists, further study the potential role of mataf in a broader context.  

This study examines the role of discretion exercised by law enforcement officers, especially within the context of criminal investigations. Discretion refers to the authority granted to investigators, prosecutors, and judges to make decisions that are not always explicitly regulated by written laws or regulations. It is granted to allow flexibility in addressing situations that require quick, context-specific decisions. Discretion is necessary because not every legal situation can be anticipated in advance by the law, especially in dynamic and unpredictable situations that law enforcement professionals encounter daily. However, the exercise of discretion must be grounded in the core principles of justice, legal certainty, and respect for human rights, ensuring that decisions are made fairly and in accordance with legal norms. While discretion allows law enforcement officers to exercise judgment and adapt to diverse situations, it also carries significant risks, particularly the potential for abuse of power. Such abuse could manifest in inappropriate criminalization of innocent individuals, discriminatory practices, or biased decisions that undermine the legitimacy of the justice system. The possibility of such negative consequences necessitates a careful and responsible approach to the application of discretion. Law enforcement officers must not only act in accordance with the law but also adhere to ethical standards and ensure that their decisions are made transparently and equitably. Therefore, the study emphasizes the need for strict oversight and the development of clear, consistent guidelines to govern the exercise of discretion. Supervision mechanisms, such as internal audits and external oversight bodies, are crucial in monitoring law enforcement activities and ensuring that officers do not misuse their powers. Furthermore, providing adequate training to law enforcement personnel on the ethical and legal boundaries of discretion is vital in preventing arbitrary or unjust decisions.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in the criminal justice system that serves to protect the rights of the accused from the risk of unfair punishment. This principle states that a person is presumed innocent until proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a crime before a court. This research uses an empirical juridical method, namely a legal approach that examines how positive law, especially unwritten law, is applied in society. In this context, the research highlights the implementation of the presumption of innocence in criminal justice practices in Indonesia. The application of the presumption of innocence is very important for the judicial process to run fairly, directed, and achieve the main objectives of criminal justice, namely upholding justice, legal certainty, and legal order. The relationship between this principle and human rights is very close, because with this principle, suspects and defendants are guaranteed to obtain legal protection during the legal process. Rights such as not being treated as guilty before a court decision, the right to defense, and the right to humane treatment are part of this principle. Enforcing the presumption of innocence is not only the responsibility of law enforcement officers such as the police, prosecutors, and judges, but also all elements of society. Therefore, it is crucial for every citizen to understand and respect this principle in their social lives, especially in responding to ongoing legal cases. As a concrete implementation, law enforcement must implement policies that protect the public and maintain a sense of security, for example by increasing surveillance in crime-prone areas. This way, the law can be enforced fairly, and public trust in the criminal justice system will increase. The presumption of innocence is a crucial foundation for the creation of humane and fair trials in Indonesia.

In the context of Indonesia’s evolving insurance landscape, this study examines the legal protection afforded to policyholders of the BLife Plan MultiPro unit-linked life insurance product against uncertainties in end-of-contract benefit payments. Employing a doctrinal-normative and historical approach, the research analyzes statutory provisions from Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection through Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance and POJK regulations to evaluate the efficacy of preventive (transparency requirements), corrective (mediation and arbitration), repressive (administrative sanctions), and restorative (insurance guarantee scheme) mechanisms. Integrating Fuller’s internal morality of law, Hart’s open-texture theory, and Knight’s risk-uncertainty distinction, the findings reveal that regulatory evolution has progressively enhanced policyholder protection from 65% under the 1999 framework to 95% under the forthcoming 2028 guarantee scheme yet practical gaps persist in consumer education and claims standardization. The study recommends clarifying policy clauses, streamlining administrative procedures, and enhancing judicial discretion to fortify legal certainty and restore consumer confidence

This study examines the ratification of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related to Measures to Prevent BEPS through Presidential Regulation (Perpres) No. 77/2019. This ratification raises legal issues because Law No. 24 of 2000 concerning International Agreements stipulates that the ratification of certain international agreements should be carried out through a Law or Presidential Decree. This study uses a normative legal method with a statutory approach to analyze the conformity of Perpres 77/2019 with Law No. 24 of 2000 and the theory of the hierarchy of legal norms. The results of the study indicate that Perpres 77/2019 is formally flawed because it conflicts with Law No. 24 of 2000, but in substance it is appropriate for use.

This study explores the legal consequences of bankruptcy on reciprocal agreements made prior to the debtor’s declaration of bankruptcy, as governed by Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. In the event of bankruptcy, control and management of the debtor's assets are transferred to a curator, which can alter the implementation of reciprocal agreements that have not been fully or partially fulfilled. According to Article 36 of Law No. 37/2004, parties who have agreements with the debtor can request confirmation regarding the continuation of the agreement from the curator within a specified period. If the curator decides not to continue, the agreement is terminated, and the other party has the right to claim compensation and will be recognized as a concurrent creditor. This study also examines the legal protection available to the parties involved, as well as the practical implications for legal and business relationships after a bankruptcy decision is made. The findings demonstrate that bankruptcy significantly affects the performance of reciprocal agreements, necessitating adjustments to the rights and obligations of all parties based on the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law. These adjustments are essential to ensuring justice and legal certainty for all parties involved in such agreements, balancing the interests of creditors, debtors, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding bankruptcy and its consequences on ongoing contractual relationships, as well as the need for a fair and transparent process in dealing with claims and obligations post-bankruptcy.

This study aims to analyze the application of laws and regulations relevant to the topic discussed by employing a normative legal research method. Normative legal research is a method focused on the study of legal norms, doctrines, and principles found in legislation and scholarly writings. In this study, two main approaches are applied: the statute approach and the conceptual approach. The statute approach involves a systematic examination of legal provisions found in various legal instruments, including laws, government regulations, ministerial regulations, and other related legal sources. By analyzing these written norms, the research seeks to identify the legal basis that governs the issue under study. This approach enables the researcher to determine the extent to which existing regulations are relevant, consistent, and effectively implemented in addressing the legal problem. Meanwhile, the conceptual approach is used to explore the legal theories, principles, and definitions that underlie the legal rules being analyzed. This approach allows the study to go beyond the textual interpretation of law and delve into the conceptual framework that gives meaning to legal provisions. It includes an analysis of key legal doctrines, theoretical perspectives, and fundamental legal concepts such as justice, legal certainty, and legal responsibility. Combining these two approaches provides a comprehensive understanding of how the law is both applied and interpreted in the context of the research topic. It helps uncover inconsistencies, gaps, or overlaps in the regulatory framework, and also facilitates a deeper reflection on the rationale behind the law. Moreover, this methodology allows for the formulation of constructive legal arguments and recommendations, based on a sound interpretation of legal norms and principles.

This study aims to analyze the implementation of election-level simplification from a legal perspective to overcome the waste of election resources and costs. Elections in Indonesia have faced various challenges, including waste in excessive paper usage, overlapping stages, and inefficient budget allocations. These inefficiencies not only burden the General Elections Commission (KPU) but also affect the effectiveness and transparency of the democratic process. Simplification of election levels is expected to be an effective solution to reduce the administrative and material burdens that hinder the implementation of elections. By streamlining the structure and reducing redundant stages, election organizers can focus more on quality, security, and public participation. This study uses a normative juridical approach by analyzing relevant laws and regulations, such as Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, as well as various policies and proposals related to election-level simplification. The analysis also includes legal principles such as efficiency, effectiveness, and legal certainty. Furthermore, the study examines how other democratic countries manage election logistics efficiently to draw lessons that can be contextualized in Indonesia. The results of this study are expected to provide concrete policy recommendations that support the implementation of simplified election systems. These recommendations are aimed at optimizing the election process by minimizing waste, both in terms of budget and the use of natural and human resources, while maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of the democratic process. Thus, this study contributes to the discourse on election reform and democratic strengthening in Indonesia.

This study explores the crucial role of legal certainty in the management of natural resources, with a focus on forest areas, as a key factor in ensuring a balanced approach to economic use, environmental sustainability, and the protection of community rights. Forests, both with and without tree cover, require clear legal frameworks to prevent overlapping claims, illegal activities, and degradation. The state's authority in regulating the status and function of forest areas is vital and must be supported by coherent, enforceable policies. Employing a normative juridical method, this research examines primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources, particularly Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry, to assess the extent to which Indonesia’s legal system provides certainty in forest area governance. The findings reveal that legal certainty is still challenged by overlapping regulations, inconsistencies in enforcement, and gaps between formal legal provisions and their implementation in the field. These issues often lead to land conflicts, unclear tenure rights, and unsustainable exploitation. Nevertheless, when implemented effectively, the legal framework has the potential to promote responsible management practices, preserve biodiversity, and safeguard indigenous and local communities' rights. The study underscores the need for harmonizing sectoral laws, strengthening institutional coordination, and improving transparency in forest area designation and use. Legal certainty is not only a prerequisite for sustainable development but also a cornerstone for legal justice and equitable resource governance. This paper contributes to the discourse on forest policy reform and aims to inform legislators, policymakers, and stakeholders involved in natural resources management about the importance of strengthening legal foundations for better governance and sustainability.

The differences in the age limits of children as stipulated in several Indonesian laws and regulations—such as the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (UU Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak/SPPA), the Child Protection Law (UU Perlindungan Anak), and the Human Rights Law (UU HAM)—have created significant legal uncertainty. These inconsistencies pose serious implications for the protection of children's rights, particularly for those who are entangled in legal conflicts. One of the most critical impacts is the potential for injustice in the application of restorative justice and diversion programs, which should be guided by the principle of the best interests of the child. Discrepancies in age definitions may also result in unequal treatment in legal proceedings and hinder access to appropriate legal remedies and rehabilitation services. For instance, a child considered underage by one law may be treated as an adult under another, leading to inconsistent judicial decisions, discrimination, and psychological harm. Furthermore, this lack of regulatory harmony undermines the credibility and consistency of the justice system in handling cases involving children. The principle of legal certainty, which is fundamental in any just legal system, cannot be upheld if such foundational definitions remain fragmented. Therefore, there is an urgent need for harmonization and alignment of all regulations related to the legal age definition of a child within the Indonesian national legal framework. Establishing a uniform age standard is essential to ensure fair treatment, protect children's rights comprehensively, prevent discriminatory practices, and improve the effectiveness of restorative justice, rehabilitation, and child protection mechanisms in Indonesia.

The rapid expansion of Indonesia’s digital economy and the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Law (Law 27/2022) have exposed significant shortcomings in the resolution of data-related disputes under existing judicial and administrative frameworks. Public adjudication of sensitive data conflicts can erode trust, impose reputational damage, and delay reparative outcomes, while courts often lack specialized expertise in technology and privacy. Drawing upon international precedents including the European Data Protection Board’s Article 65 GDPR mechanism, the EU–US Data Privacy Framework arbitration annex, and the European Patent Office’s data-protection arbitration rules this study examines the urgency and feasibility of establishing a dedicated Data Dispute Arbitration Forum in Indonesia. Through comparative analysis, it identifies core design elements such as expert-appointed tribunals, streamlined online procedures, confidentiality safeguards, clear enforcement under the New York Con-vention, and mechanisms for restorative remedies beyond fines. Anchored in Pancasila’s social-justice ethos and Indonesia’s ADR law (Law 30/1999) and ITE Law, the proposed institutional architecture integrates online dispute resolution (ODR) protocols, data-minimization and cybersecurity guidelines, and publicly anonymized award publication to foster legal certainty and raise awareness of data-protection obligations. A stakeholder impact assessment demonstrates that such a forum would benefit individual data subjects through low-cost, expeditious relief; controllers and processors through predictability and trade-secret protection; regulators through expert findings; and foreign investors through alignment with global data-governance standards. By aligning domestic legal values with international best practices, the specialized forum promises to bolster enforcement, restore public trust, and strengthen Indonesia’s competitiveness in the global digital marketplace.

In everyday life, the practice of making agreements often occurs informally and without written documentation, particularly in casual social interactions and economic activities. This raises important legal questions regarding whether verbal agreements hold valid legal force. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal status of verbal agreements under Indonesian civil law, particularly in relation to the requirements for the validity of an agreement as outlined in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). The study employs a normative juridical approach, focusing on legal provisions and legal doctrines to explore the issue. According to the findings, while verbal agreements are legally binding, they must still meet the requirements stipulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code. These requirements include mutual consent, the capability of the parties involved, a lawful object, and a legal cause. Despite the lack of a written record, verbal agreements can still be considered valid as long as these criteria are met. However, a significant challenge arises when disputes occur, as proving the existence and terms of a verbal agreement can be difficult without written evidence. This is where the importance of written agreements comes into play, as they provide stronger legal protection in case of legal conflicts. The study also highlights that although Indonesian civil law recognizes verbal agreements, it strongly encourages parties to formalize agreements in writing to avoid ambiguity and ensure legal certainty. In conclusion, while verbal agreements are valid under the law, the need for written documentation is crucial for protecting the interests of the parties involved and providing clear evidence in the event of a legal dispute.  

Indonesia has two frameworks of a criminal law system that runs in parallel, namely Western criminal law which comes from the Dutch colonial heritage through the Criminal Code (KUHP) and customary criminal law that develops in society based on traditional norms. Both have important positions in the national legal system despite their different characters and sources of legitimacy. The Criminal Code is present as a general written law with a strong codification and legal certainty, while customary criminal law is more flexible, dynamic, and emphasizes the value of social justice that lives in society. In practice, the application of customary criminal law is often oriented towards restoring harmony, deliberation, and family settlement. This is different from the Criminal Code which emphasizes formal sanctions in the form of imprisonment, fines, or other punishments that are retributive. This difference in orientation is what makes customary criminal law still relevant and accepted in various regions, even though it does not always receive full recognition in Indonesia's positive legal system. Along with the times, the government has drafted a Draft Criminal Code Bill (RUU KUHP) which is expected to be a form of national criminal law unification. The Criminal Code Bill from 2005 to the latest one in 2020 tried to incorporate elements of customary criminal law into the national legal framework. This aims to accommodate the legal pluralism that exists in Indonesia, as well as answer the needs of the community for a legal system that not only provides legal certainty, but also reflects a sense of social justice. Thus, the comparison between the Criminal Code and customary criminal law shows that there is tension as well as the potential for integration.