This research explores the justification for criminalizing bestiality in Indonesia, emphasizing the moral and ethical values embedded in Pancasila. Triggered by the infamous case of an orangutan named Pony, subjected to sexual exploitation, the study highlights significant gaps in the Indonesian legal system. While Article 302 of the Criminal Code addresses physical abuse, it fails to explicitly criminalize bestiality, leaving such acts unregulated. Using a normative juridical method, the research integrates Pancasila’s principles of humanity, justice, and animal welfare as the moral foundation for legal reform. Pancasila promotes respect for all living beings, viewing bestiality as a violation of its core principles. The findings reveal significant enforcement challenges, including the private nature of the crime, the lack of witnesses, and the inability of animal victims to provide testimony. Forensic evidence, such as histopathology and DNA analysis, is critical but often hindered by limited training among law enforcement and veterinarians. Additionally, societal taboos and inadequate legal education exacerbate public unawareness of bestiality as a criminal offense. This study advocates for comprehensive public legal education, specialized training for law enforcement on forensic techniques and evidence management, and collaboration with veterinary experts to ensure effective enforcement. These measures aim to uphold animal welfare and align legal policies with Indonesian societal and ethical values

This research critically examines Indonesian criminal law in addressing necrophilia's various manifestations, emphasizing the protection of deceased dignity and human rights. Using normative legal analysis, the study reveals that Indonesian criminal law provides partial coverage for necrophilia cases. Role Player necrophilia is addressed by Articles 6b and 12 of the TPKS Law, focusing on victim dignity and perpetrator sanctions. Romantic necrophilia, involving exhumation or corpse concealment, may fall under Criminal Code Articles 180 and 181, aimed at protecting the sanctity of the deceased. Necrophiliac Fantasizers, though not explicitly penalized, raise concerns due to the potential transition from fantasy to criminal acts. Tactile necrophilia is punishable under Articles 6b and 6c of the TPKS Law when physical abuse of corpses occurs. Additionally, Fetishistic necrophiles and Necromutilomaniacs who exploit corpses are subject to Criminal Code Articles 180 and 181. The findings indicate a need for legal reform, as current laws fail to comprehensively cover all necrophilia types, especially Romantic necrophilia and Necrophiliac Fantasizers. Furthermore, Homicidal and Exclusive necrophiles, committing extreme offenses, fall under Articles 338, 339, and 340, along with Article 6b and 180, addressing severe harm, murder, and corpse exploitation. This study’s novelty lies in categorizing necrophilia types within Indonesian law, highlighting gaps in legal protections. It recommends targeted legal amendments to ensure all forms of necrophilia are adequately recognized and prosecuted, thereby strengthening ethical and societal standards.