Indonesian courts have long lacked a uniform approach to acquittals (putusan bebas) and discharges from all legal charges (putusan lepas). Divergent practices among courts creating uncertainty as to the legal treatment of these judgments and the remedies available against them. To resolve this uncertainty, the Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung, the “Supreme Court”) issued Supreme Court Circular Letter (“SEMA”) No. 4 of 2026 on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, coinciding with the Supreme Court’s eighty-first anniversary. SEMA No. 4 of 2026 constitutes a judicial guideline applicable to all judges and presiding officers of criminal courts throughout Indonesia governing both the execution of judgments and the availability of legal remedies with respect to two categories of judgment that have long been a source of confusion in practice: acquittal (vrijspraak) and discharge from all legal charges (onslag van alle rechtsvervolging).
Concurrently with the issuance of this Circular Letter, the Supreme Court revoked SEMA No. 8 of 2011 on Cases Not Meeting the Requirements for Cassation and Judicial Review. The former Circular Letter had served as the basis for screening applications for cassation and judicial review, in both civil and criminal matters, with the aim of preventing the unnecessary accumulation of cases before the Supreme Court. In general terms, SEMA No. 4 of 2026 was promulgated as a consequence of the enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (the “New KUHAP”), which took effect on January 2, 2026, and which introduced material changes with respect to the legal remedies available against acquittals.
Background to SEMA No. 4 of 2026
The issue addressed by SEMA No. 4 of 2026 first arose under Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-X/2012, which invalidated the phrase “except with respect to an acquittal” contained in Article 244 of the former Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 8 of 1981, the “Former KUHAP”). Prior to the invalidation of that phrase, public prosecutors were expressly prohibited from filing cassation against an acquittal. Following the effective date of the Constitutional Court’s decision on March 28, 2013, however, the prohibition on filling cassation against acquittals under Article 244 of the Former KUHAP was no longer applicable. As a consequence, numerous defendants who had already been acquitted by a court of first instance were nonetheless compelled to endure further proceedings that, in many cases, extended for months or even years.
A concrete illustration of this issue is presented by the alleged obstruction-of-justice proceeding brought against Tian Bahtiar, the former Head of News at JakTV; M. Adhiya Muzakki, a social media manager; and Junaedi Saibih, an advocate. The three defendants were charged with obstructing the handling of three major corruption matters, namely those concerning the governance of the tin commodity trade, sugar importation, and the issuance of export permits for crude palm oil (“CPO”). The Corruption Crimes Court of the Central Jakarta District Court found the defendants not guilty and acquitted them of all charges. Because the proceeding remained governed by the Former KUHAP, the Public Prosecutor subsequently filed an application for a cassation application, contending that the panel of judges had failed to give due consideration to the effect of the defendants’ conduct on the handling of the three corruption matters. On August 12, 2026, however—shortly before the issuance of SEMA No. 4 of 2026—the Supreme Court denied the prosecutors’ application for cassation and affirmed the acquittal of all three defendants.
This proceeding illustrates that, notwithstanding the availability of cassation against acquittals under the Former KUHAP, uncertainty remained as to the circumstances in which such cassation could be pursued. It is precisely this state of affairs that SEMA No. 4 of 2026 is intended to resolve definitively, by establishing a clear rule of uniform application throughout Indonesia: an acquittal is final upon pronouncement and may not be challenged by any legal remedy, whether by appeal or cassation.
Distinction Between Acquittals and Discharges from All Legal Charges
To avoid misapprehension as to the respective legal effect of an acquittal and a discharge from all legal charges, the distinction between these two categories of judgment warrants preliminary explanation. An acquittal is rendered where the charge brought by the Public Prosecutor is not established over the course of the proceeding, such that the court concludes that the Defendant did not, in fact, commit the act charged. A discharge from all legal charges, by contrast, is rendered on a different basis: the act charged is established to have in fact occurred, but the act is determined not to fall within the ambit of criminal law and is more properly characterized as a civil or customary-law matter, or is subject to a justification or excuse that vitiates its unlawful character. Because these two categories of judgment rest on distinct legal bases, their respective legal consequences likewise differ, as summarized in the table below:
| Criterion | Acquittal (Vrijspraak) | Discharge from All Legal Charges (Onslag van Alle Rechtsvervolging) |
| Basis for the Judgment | The charges brought by the Public Prosecutor are not proven in a lawful and convincing manner. | The act charged is proven to have been committed by the Defendant but does not constitute a criminal offense. |
| Statutory Basis | Article 244(2) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (the New KUHAP). | Article 244(3) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (the New KUHAP). |
| Availability of Legal Remedies | No legal remedy may be sought; the judgment is final and binding. | An appeal or cassation may be filed by either the Public Prosecutor or the Defendant. |
| Status of Detention | A detained Defendant shall be released immediately upon pronouncement of the judgment (Article 244(4) of Law No. 20 of 2025). | The Defendant shall be released from detention on the date the judgment is rendered (Article 244(5) of Law No. 20 of 2025). |
Further Consequences Where a Discharge Is Subject to a Legal Remedy
Article 244(5) of Law No. 20 of 2025 governs not only the obligation to release the Defendant from detention, but also the consequences that follow where a discharge from all legal charges is challenged by way of a legal remedy. Unlike an acquittal, which is final upon pronouncement, a discharge remains subject to appeal or cassation at the instance of either the Public Prosecutor or the Defendant. Once either party files such a remedy, the status of the Defendant’s detention must be determined in accordance with the procedure applicable to the pending legal remedy.
This transfer of jurisdiction has no application to an acquittal. The rationale is straightforward: following the issuance of SEMA No. 4 of 2026, no avenue for a legal remedy against an acquittal remains available. Because no appeal or cassation may be pursued, there is, by definition, no occasion on which jurisdiction over detention would need to pass to a higher court.
SEMA No. 4 of 2026 as an Judicial Guidance for the Implementation Policy of the New KUHAP
SEMA No. 4 of 2026 should be read alongside with 2 (two) other Supreme Court Circular Letters issued in furtherance of the implementation of the New KUHAP: SEMA No. 1 of 2026 on Guidelines for Implementation of the 2023 Criminal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, which provides broader guidance on the implementation of the New KUHAP.
Subsequently, SEMA No. 2 of 2026 on Guidelines for Filing Cassation Pursuant to Articles 298 and 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued. SEMA No. 4 of 2026 provides more specific guidance on issues concerning acquittals, discharges from all legal charges, and certain legal remedies under the New KUHAP.
Practical Considerations Under SEMA No. 4 of 2026
Law enforcement officials, litigants, and legal counsel should take note of the following considerations following the entry into force of SEMA No. 4 of 2026:
- An acquittal is now final upon pronouncement; neither an appeal nor cassation may be pursued against a judgment of this category, reflecting the change in the legal framework introduces by the New KUHAP.
- The right of a Defendant who receives a discharge from all legal charges to immediate release from detention on the date the judgment is rendered must be given genuine effect, and not merely satisfied as a matter of formality.
- Counsel should first ascertain that SEMA No. 4 of 2026 operates as an integrated framework together with SEMA No. 1 of 2026 and SEMA No. 2 of 2026 before determining the appropriate course of legal action.
- Case strategy should be developed in consultation with legal counsel at the earliest practicable stage, particularly in matters that may give rise to divergent interpretations as to the applicable category of judgment and the corresponding legal remedies.
Conclusion
The issuance of SEMA No. 4 of 2026 provides greater clarity within Indonesian criminal justice practice, in particular with respect to the differing treatment accorded to acquittals and discharges from all legal charges. This directive was issued in the context of the enactment of the New KUHAP, namely Law No. 20 of 2025, and forecloses the scope for interpretive divergence that had persisted for years as a result of Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-X/2012. By means of this Circular Letter, the Supreme Court has confirmed that an acquittal is final and binding upon pronouncement and, accordingly, may no longer be challenged by any legal remedy, whether by appeal or cassation. A discharge from all legal charges, by contrast, remains subject to appeal or cassation at the instance of either the Public Prosecutor or the Defendant, with the consequence that jurisdiction to determine the necessity of continued detention passes to the appellate court upon the filing of such remedy.
Mangatur Nainggolan Law Firm (“MNL”) recognizes the importance of understanding the legal implications of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings, particularly following the enactment of the New KUHAP and the issuance of SEMA No. 4 of 2026. For further information or legal assistance regarding these developments, our team is available to provide guidance tailored to the circumstances of each case.
References
Paralegal.id, copy of Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 8 of 2011
Summary of Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-X/2012, dated March 28, 2013
Full text of Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-X/2012
Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, in particular Articles 244 and 299
Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (the Former KUHAP), for historical comparison
Dandapala, “SEMA 4/2026 Issued: No Legal Remedy May Be Sought Against an Acquittal,” August 19, 2026
Author : Dian Sylvia M Sitanggang, S.H
Editor : Arcefrida Imanuella Girsang, S.H.