Uncertain Transition: Judicial Disparity and the Limits of Supreme Court Circular Letters in the Era of Criminal Law Codification
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32734/rslr.v5i1.25190Keywords:
Judicial Disparity, Transitional Period, Legal CertaintyAbstract
The simultaneous implementation of the National Penal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023) and the New Code of Criminal Procedure (Law Number 20 of 2025) on January 2, 2026 marks a fundamental transformation in Indonesia’s criminal justice system, while also creating significant challenges in ensuring consistency of legal application during the transitional period. This study aims to identify the forms of judicial disparity, evaluate the effectiveness of Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026, and formulate an ideal model for ensuring legal certainty. The research employs a normative legal method using statute and conceptual approaches, supported by limited case and comparative approaches. The findings reveal three main forms of disparity, namely regime disparity, sentencing disparity, and procedural disparity, which stem from the ambiguity of transitional norms and the absence of detailed operational guidelines. Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026 is found to be insufficiently effective as a disparity-prevention instrument due to its limited normative authority, substantive scope, and implementation. Therefore, this study proposes a three-pillar model for ensuring legal certainty, consisting of strengthening normative instruments through a Supreme Court Regulation, establishing an inter-institutional coordination forum, and enhancing judicial interpretive capacity through continuing legal education. This model is expected to reduce disparity and promote fair legal certainty during the transitional period.
Downloads
References
Adi Kusyandi, S. Y. (2023). Disparitas Putusan Hakim Pidana Berkualitas yang Mencerminkan Rasa Keadilan dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Yustitia, 9(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31943/yustitia.v9i1.173.
Alfret, M. P. F. (2023). Ketentuan Asas Lex Favor Reo dalam KUHP Nasional terhadap Putusan yang Telah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 8(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2023.v8.i1.p75-92.
Birte Englich, Thomas Mussweiler, F. S. (2005). The Last Word in Court—A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense. Law and Human Behavio, 29(6), 705–722. https://doi.org/705–722. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7.
Diah Ratu Sari. (2022). Pengaturan Pidana Pengawasan dan Pidana Kerja Sosial dalam Rancangan KUHP sebagai Upaya Menerapkan Daad-Dader Strafrecht. SALAM: Jurnal Sosial Dan Budaya Syar-I, 9(1), 133–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v9i1.24338
Faisal, M. R. (2021). Pembaruan Pilar Hukum Pidana Dalam RUU KUHP. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal, 10(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.24843/JMHU.2021.v10.i02.p08
Manik, D. V. (2025). Reform of Indonesian Criminal Law Reviewed From Law Number 1 of 2023 About the Criminal Code". International Journal of Sociology and Law. Vol. 2 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijsl.v2i1.330
Melieke Jilliani Darmaputra. (2023). Disparitas Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Narkotika Pada Putusan Nomor 28/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Smg dan Putusan Nomor 742/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Smg. Jurnal Hukum Politik Dan Kekuasaan, 3(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24167/jhpk.v3i2.6476.
Muhamad Romdoni, S. F. (2022). Disparitas Pemidanaan dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Khusus Narkotika di Pengadilan Negeri Tangerang. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 51(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.51.3.2022.287-298.
Orin Gusta Andini, N. (2021). Menakar Relevansi Pedoman Pemidanaan Koruptor terhadap Upaya Pemberantasan Korupsi. Tanjungpura Law Journal, 5(2), 133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v5i2.46109.
Richard S. Frase. (2005). Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota, 1978–2003. Crime and Justice, 32, 31–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/655354.
Rizka Fakhry Alfiananda. (2023). Meletakkan Realisme Hukum Sebagai Pendekatan Dalam Judicial Reasoning Melalui Pedoman Pemidanaan. Tumou Tou Law Review, 2(2), 64–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35801/tourev.v2i2.57565.
Siti Sahara, Nurasyiah Nurasyiah, L. A. K. (2022). Problematika Persidangan Perkara Pidana di Masa Kahar. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi, 5(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24090/VOLKSGEIST.
Teafani Kaunang Slat. (2019). Sanksi Pidana Kerja Sosial Terhadap Tindak Pidana Ringan Sebagai Upaya Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Nasional. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila Dan Kewarganegaraan, 4(2), 352–360. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um019v4i2p352-360.
Thomas Behrens, Ulrich Keil, J. H. (2011). Barriers to Guideline Implementation. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 108(28–29), 491. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2011.0491a.
Thomas J. Miceli. (2008). Criminal Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00065.x.
Vega Christian Pratama, L. S. E. T. (2020). Urgensi Hakim Pemeriksaan Pendahuluan dalam Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia. Journal of Education, Humaniora and Social Sciences (JEHSS), 3(2), 703–711. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34007/jehss.v3i2.398.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Risma Yulestari, La Ode Muhamad Sulihin, La Ode Muhammad Ichsan, La Ode Muhammad Saleh Saputra; Alif Talib
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
