Legal Certainty of Suspension of Detention with Guarantee under Article 110 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) introduces significant reforms to criminal procedural law, including the regulation of suspension of detention with guarantee under Article 110. Although the provision seeks to strengthen procedural safeguards and the protection of suspects' rights, questions remain regarding its ability to ensure legal certainty in practical implementation. This study aims to analyze the normative regulation of suspension of detention with guarantee under Article 110 and evaluate whether the provision provides adequate legal certainty within Indonesia's criminal justice system. This research employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Primary legal materials consist of Law Number 20 of 2025 and related legislation, while secondary legal materials include recent scholarly publications on criminal procedure, detention, due process of law, legal certainty, and human rights. The collected legal materials were analyzed qualitatively through descriptive, interpretative, and evaluative legal analysis. The findings reveal that Article 110 establishes a more comprehensive legal framework than the previous Criminal Procedure Code by reaffirming the authority to grant suspension of detention, recognizing monetary and personal guarantees, and strengthening procedural safeguards. However, the provision has not yet achieved complete legal certainty because it lacks objective statutory criteria governing the approval of applications, proportional guarantee standards, and measurable parameters for the exercise of official discretion. Consequently, inconsistent interpretation and unequal application remain potential challenges in practice. The novelty of this study lies in its normative evaluation of Article 110 from the perspective of legal certainty following the enactment of the new Criminal Procedure Code. The study recommends the adoption of implementing regulations or judicial guidelines establishing objective procedural standards to ensure consistent application while strengthening due process of law and the protection of suspects' rights
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Afrizal, R., Kurniawan, I., & Wahyudi, F. (2024). Relevansi Pelayanan Tahanan Dalam Sistem Pemasyarakatan Terhadap Tujuan Pemasyarakatan (Tinjauan Perubahan Undang-Undang Pemasyarakatan). Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 53(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.53.1.2024.101-110
Ahwan, A., & Rahmania, N. (2025). Upaya Paksa Dalam Ruu Kuhap: Perspektif Model Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Journal Kompilasi Hukum, 10(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.29303/jkh.v10i2.274
Alfath, N. K. R., & Tornado, A. S. (2025). Penangguhan Penahanan Sebagai Instrumen Perlindungan Hak Asasi Dalam Perspektif Due Process Of Law The Suspension of Detention as an Instrument for Protecting Human Rights within the Framework of Due Process of Law Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Pal. 8(12), 9204–9212. https://doi.org/10.56338/jks.v8i12.10723
Gurusi, L. (2022). Pengaturan Hukum Jaminan Penanggungan Penahanan oleh Penyidik Polri Berdasarkan Pasal 31 KUHAP (Studi di Polisi Sektor Pasarwajo). Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 6(3), 6302–6309.
Hamja. (2024a). Pembaruan Kebijakan Pemidanaan Dalam Rangka Mengatasi Faktor Penyebab Overcrowding Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Di Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 53(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.53.3.2024.261-270
Hamja, H. (2024b). The Impact of Pre-Trial Detention on Prison Overcrowding: Perspectives From Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 8(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v8i1.4303
Huennekens, K. (2022). Long Over-Due Process: Proposing a New Standard for Pretrial Detainees’ Length of Confinement Claims. Duke Law Journal, 71(7), 1647–1700.
Hutagalung, T. S. (2023). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Implementation in the Juvenile Criminal Justice System in Indonesia. Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH), 2(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.55299/jsh.v2i1.1353
Indonesia, P. R. (1981). Undang Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang: Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Sinar Grafika. Jakarta.
Indonesia, P. R. (2025). Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP). In Pencabulan Anak Di Bawah Umur.
Jeffries, S., & Owen, B. (2025). Locked Away While Innocent: Women, Human Rights, and Pre-Trial Detention. Laws, 14(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050075
Kuncoro, O. E., Riyanto, T., & Wilbert, R. (2025). The Dynamics of Human Rights Issue Resolution from the Perspective of Dignified Justice. Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH), 4(1), 01–09. https://doi.org/10.55299/jsh.v4i1.1355
Noor, M. S., Munawar, A., & Rahmathoni, L. Y. (2024). Paradigma baru hukum acara pidana: Rekonstruksi perlindungan hak asasi tersangka dalam proses peradilan. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 5(12).
Pramesti, E. L. (2025). KAJIAN TERHADAP PENANGGUHAN PENAHANAN DENGAN JAMINAN BERDASARKAN PASAL 31 KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM ACARA PIDANA (KUHAP). Jurnal Crilawsci, 1(1), 23–29.
Supianto, S. (2020). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Penangguhan Penahanan Dengan Jaminan (Study Di Polresta Barelang). Era Hukum-Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum, 18(1), 43–59.
Winata, I. M. A. K., Sugiartha, I. N. G., & Widyantara, I. M. M. (2021). Proses Penangguhan Penahanan Dengan Jaminan Pada Tingkat Penyidik Berdasarkan Pasal 31 KUHAP. Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 2(2), 403–408. https://doi.org/10.22225/juinhum.2.2.3449.403-408