Legal Literacy — The effective enforcement of the National Criminal Code (KUHP) since January 2, 2026, has practical consequences in the courtroom: cases where the acts occurred before that date, but are tried or are still ongoing after that date, now fall into the “transition case” category. In this context, it is not enough for judges to simply “follow the old article custom”, but must measurably assess: whether to use the old or new article.[1]

The Supreme Court, through the MariNews channel, emphasized that the main basis for handling transition cases rests on Article 618 jo. Article 3 of the National Criminal Code, which essentially requires the application of new provisions, unless the old provisions are more beneficial to the defendant, and opens the possibility of termination by law if the act is no longer criminalized.[2]

Three transition case scenarios

In MariNews' description, there are at least three scenarios that can arise in transition cases:[3]

  1. The National Criminal Code is more beneficial → the provisions of the National Criminal Code are applied. MariNews provides an example of comparing criminal threats in certain offenses (including examples of corruption offenses), to show situations where the National Criminal Code is considered more beneficial.
  2. The old law is more beneficial → the old provisions can still be used, with a reaffirmation of the basis for the transition. MariNews mentions that judges need to include a transition reference (for example, “jo. Article 618 of the National Criminal Code”) to show the basis for using the old rules.
  3. Decriminalization → if the act is no longer a criminal offense according to the new rules, legal proceedings must be terminated by law. Detikcom also quoted the principle in Article 3 of the Criminal Code: when an act is no longer criminalized according to the new law, legal proceedings against the suspect/defendant must be terminated by law.