The criminal law in Indonesia is composed of different subsets. Each of them has a unique function in shaping the country’s justice mechanism. The legal system of Indonesia is characterized by judicial interpretation followed by application of statutory law. It is very significant to be studied comprehensively since the operation of the judicial system is highly influenced by the social environment, particularly the social subsystems. In this article, we discuss the Indonesian criminal law system with an Pancasila viewpoint; also, Indonesia’s criminal law with the notion of Pancasila.
According to the legal tradition established by Usman Putra, who was a prominent Indonesian scholar and author, “Criminology is the study of crime, identifying its causes, characteristics, effects, and definition. Criminology is not only concerned about the offender but also about the various societal groups that are affected by the commission of criminal acts. Thus, a criminal act may have diverse causes, such as religious and political intolerance, social evils such as inequality and poverty, and physical aggression and abuse. The harm done by a criminal act is always assessed using a forensic perspective. This perspective is an essential component of the developing legal culture of Indonesia. It can be seen to have achieved success in serving as a model for developing open system justice.
Pancasila is a limited conception which emerged out of the deficiencies of traditional criminal law in Indonesia. It emerged from the conviction that the execution of the sentence through a criminal court is not sufficient to ensure rehabilitation of the victim or the community as a whole. To provide social services as well as to ensure an effective and just society, it was necessary to introduce a comprehensive system of criminal punishments. It was under this system that today there are many subsystems involved.
On one side we have Pancasila which is theoretically based on moral insight and current practices of the Indonesian society. On the other hand, we have what are known as social justice, or more precisely, our legal traditions. These represent a significant part of our criminal law in Indonesia. The criminal laws that we presently observe are motivated by both societal requirements and the requirements of the criminal prosecution itself. Our legal traditions were forged over time and have developed through the different waves of influence that came and went throughout the evolution of our society.
What have we learnt from the past concerning criminalisation? For instance, the common view is that criminal law should have a broader perspective to the crime in question. This view perceives crime as an issue of public concern and is therefore required to be addressed on a societal and public level. Such an approach treats criminal acts as something that affects everyone. Although this perspective was found to be correct in the past, it does not adequately address the pressing need for reforms on the enforcement of criminal law in Indonesia today.
Underlying this perspective is the belief that any form of deviation from the norm sets the country’s criminal law system below the international standards. This means that deviation from the norm must be dealt with through legislation. In order to be credible, any government should be able to implement its domestic, criminal law reforms in a way that the other countries will perceive them to be credible. If the other countries take offense, our credibility as a nation in Indonesia could be questioned. Hence, any deviation from the norm needs to be addressed through legislation.
However, we cannot discount the existence of inherent flaws within the current framework of the criminal justice systems in Indonesia and elsewhere in the region. For instance, Singapore has established itself as a socially stable country with an open and tolerant society. However, a recent documentary portrays the country as being intolerant of religious activities by its citizens. Religious intolerance is already an issue in Singapore. Whether or not the film violates artistic freedom, the Republic’s government will have to take steps to curb incidences of such discrimination.
Human rights defenders, including the Lawyers Association of Indonesia, have raised concerns about the depiction of Buddhism in a film that depicts the spiritual practices of the Buddha. The depiction of Buddhism by the film-maker was seen by some as an attempt to create a parallel between the religion and secularism. This parallelism may have long term repercussions. It would certainly embolden other Malaysian states to adopt similar stances. As such human rights defenders in Indonesia and elsewhere are calling for a boycott of the film