Indonesia’s criminal procedure landscape has undergone a significant change following the implementation of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana or KUHAP 2025). Against this background, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia) issued Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2026 (SEMA No. 4 of 2026) on 19 August 2026. The circular provides important guidance concerning the execution of, and legal remedies against, criminal judgments, including ‘putusan bebas’ (acquittal) and ‘putusan lepas’ dari segala tuntutan hukum (release from all legal charges). (Dandapala)
What Is a Putusan Bebas?
A putusan bebas (acquittal) is a criminal judgment in which the court finds that the prosecution has not established the defendant’s guilt to the required legal standard. In practical terms, the defendant is acquitted of the criminal charge. This is distinct from a putusan lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum, where the court may find that the alleged act was proven but that the act does not constitute a criminal offence, or that there is another legal basis preventing criminal liability. This distinction remains important under the new criminal procedure framework.
What Has Changed Under the New KUHAP?
One of the most significant developments concerns the availability of ordinary legal remedies against an acquittal issued by a court of first instance. Under the previous criminal procedure framework, Indonesian criminal procedure had long contained a prohibition on ordinary legal remedies against an acquittal. However, judicial practice developed around the distinction between bebas murni (pure acquittal) and bebas tidak murni (impure acquittal).
In certain circumstances, prosecutors sought to challenge an acquittal by arguing that the judgment was not genuinely a bebas murni but instead constituted a bebas tidak murni, particularly where the court was alleged to have incorrectly applied the law. This created a significant area of legal debate concerning whether and under what circumstances an acquittal could ultimately be brought before a higher court.
The new framework under KUHAP 2025, together with the Supreme Court’s guidance in SEMA No. 4 of 2026, provides a clearer position. A putusan bebas at the first-instance level is treated as closed to ordinary legal remedies. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor cannot challenge such an acquittal through banding (appeal) or kasasi (cassation). (Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Agung)
Why Can a Putusan Bebas No Longer Be Appealed?
The underlying principle is the finality of an acquittal. Once a court of first instance has acquitted a defendant, the defendant should not remain exposed indefinitely to the possibility that the prosecution may seek to overturn that acquittal through successive levels of ordinary judicial review.
The new approach therefore places greater emphasis on legal certainty, finality of proceedings, and protection against prolonged criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court has explained that putusan bebas should be regarded as a judgment that is closed to ordinary legal remedies. If a Public Prosecutor nevertheless submits an appeal against a first-instance acquittal, the application should be declared inadmissible. (Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Agung)
Accordingly, an acquittal is not simply a favourable judgment that may subsequently be reconsidered through the ordinary appellate hierarchy. It carries a stronger principle of finality.
What Does “Final” Mean in Practice?
Under this approach, a putusan bebas issued by the District Court (Pengadilan Negeri) is treated as final and immediately legally binding (mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap / inkracht van gewijsde) in the context of ordinary legal remedies. The prosecution therefore cannot circumvent the prohibition by characterising the acquittal as a ‘bebas tidak murni’ and seeking review through banding or kasasi.
This represents an important shift in practical litigation strategy. Once an acquittal has been rendered at first instance, the focus is no longer on determining whether the acquittal can be transformed into a reviewable decision through an alternative characterisation. The ordinary appellate route is closed.
What Was the Position Before the New KUHAP?
Under the previous KUHAP, Article 67 expressly excluded putusan bebas from appeal, while Article 244 similarly excluded an acquittal from cassation.
Nevertheless, Indonesian criminal jurisprudence developed a complex debate concerning the possibility of cassation against what was characterised as a bebas tidak murni. This produced uncertainty in practice and resulted in prosecutors seeking to challenge certain acquittals by arguing that the judgment involved an error in the application of law rather than a genuine assessment resulting in a pure acquittal.
The new framework seeks to eliminate this uncertainty by treating an acquittal as a category of judgment that is closed to ordinary legal remedies, rather than permitting the availability of an appeal or cassation to depend upon whether the acquittal is characterised as “pure” or “impure.” (Jurnal Yudisial)
Why Is This Significant?
The change has several practical implications.
First, it strengthens legal certainty for defendants. A defendant who has been acquitted at first instance should not remain exposed to ordinary appellate proceedings initiated by the prosecution.
Second, it reinforces the finality of criminal proceedings. Criminal litigation should ultimately reach a point at which the dispute is conclusively determined.
Third, it provides greater procedural predictability for prosecutors, defendants, defence counsel and the courts. The possibility of challenging an acquittal can no longer depend upon the disputed classification of the judgment as bebas murni or bebas tidak murni.
Fourth, it has important implications for litigation strategy. Defence counsel should recognise the importance of securing an acquittal at the first-instance stage, while prosecutors must carefully consider their evidentiary and legal position before the District Court because an acquittal cannot subsequently be taken through the ordinary appellate route.
A Broader Shift in Indonesian Criminal Procedure
SEMA No. 4 of 2026 should therefore be understood within the broader transition to KUHAP 2025, rather than as an isolated procedural development. The Supreme Court has already issued other guidance concerning the implementation of the new KUHAP. For example, SEMA No. 2 of 2026 provides guidance concerning cassation under Articles 298 and 300 of Law Number 20 of 2025, including the new fourteen-day period for filing cassation following the pronouncement of a decision of the High Court. (Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Agung)
SEMA No. 4 of 2026 therefore forms part of a broader effort to provide procedural certainty during the implementation of the new criminal procedure regime.
Conclusion
The issuance of SEMA No. 4 of 2026 on 19 August 2026 marks an important clarification of the legal position concerning putusan bebas (acquittal) under Indonesia’s new criminal procedure framework.
The essential principle is clear: an acquittal rendered by the court of first instance is closed to ordinary legal remedies of banding (appeal) and kasasi (cassation). The practical consequence is that an acquittal must be treated as final and immediately legally binding, without the prosecution being able to reopen the matter through the ordinary appellate process by relying on the former distinction between bebas murni and bebas tidak murni. (Dandapala)
For businesses, executives and individuals involved in criminal proceedings, this development is particularly relevant when assessing litigation strategy, evidentiary preparation and the potential consequences of a first-instance criminal judgment.
Sigma Law Firm continues to monitor developments in Indonesia’s criminal justice framework and their practical implications for clients engaged in Indonesian and cross-border business activities.
This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the law depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.