Vigilantism as a Threat to Due Process of Law in Indonesia

JurnalPost.com On 24 July 2026 at approximately 01.30 Central Indonesian Time, residents of Batuan Village, Tabanan, Bali, mobbed a man identified by the initials KD. KD was caught in the act of stealing chickens and was assaulted while attempting to flee. He later died, and police have named five individuals as suspects. This incident highlights that vigilantism remains a frequent occurrence in society. Public outrage often leads individuals to believe they have the right to punish those they perceive as guilty without waiting for legitimate legal processes.
IMG 0115

Such actions are clearly unlawful as they disregard the presumption of innocence and deprive individuals of their right to protection and a fair legal process. The issue is further complicated when allegations of criminal activity spread on social media without verification. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how Indonesian law addresses mob justice and how the legal system ensures that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

The primary foundation is Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states that Indonesia is a state based on the rule of law. This means that all aspects of social and national life must be conducted according to applicable laws, including the resolution of alleged criminal acts. The public may not unilaterally determine guilt or administer punishment based on personal will or mob consensus. Alleged crimes must be resolved through law enforcement mechanisms established by legislation. Beating, mobbing, or torturing an individual under the guise of "punishment" outside of established procedures contradicts the principles of a rule-of-law state.

The Constitution also protects the rights of those suspected of committing crimes. Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees every person the right to recognition, security, protection, and fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law. Being a suspect does not strip an individual of their human rights or citizenship. In cases of vigilantism, residents often punish based on suspicions or unverified information, denying the victim the opportunity for a fair legal process. Guilt must be determined through a fair judicial process, not by mob pressure.

Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution further guarantees the protection of personal self, family, honor, dignity, and a sense of security. Those who are mobbed, beaten, threatened, or tortured clearly have their safety and personal protection violated. The rise of social media has also introduced digital vigilantism, such as the dissemination of photos, identities, addresses, or personal information of those suspected of wrongdoing. Such actions attack an individual's honor, dignity, and sense of security. Therefore, even those suspected of a crime remain entitled to protection from violence and degrading treatment.

The next essential foundation is the principle of the presumption of innocence. Article 8 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power states that every person suspected, arrested, detained, prosecuted, or brought before a court must be presumed innocent until a court verdict declares their guilt and has permanent legal force. This principle is also emphasized in the General Explanation number 3 letter c of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The public must not assume guilt based solely on accusations or rumors. In the phenomenon of "trial by social media," an individual may be labeled a perpetrator before their case is examined and proven in court.

The criminal justice system provides mechanisms to test the veracity of allegations, ranging from investigation and prosecution to court examination and evidence presentation. An allegation is not equivalent to proof of guilt. Members of the public who punish before a court verdict act as if they possess authority that is not theirs. The presumption of innocence serves as a safeguard to ensure that judgment is not based on mere suspicion.

From the perspective of criminal law, perpetrators of vigilantism can be held accountable under Law Number 1 of 2023 regarding the Criminal Code (KUHP). Article 262 governs collective violence in public, a provision highly relevant as vigilantism is almost always carried out by groups. If several people openly and collectively commit violence against persons or property, the act meets the elements of this article. Criminal penalties can be more severe if the violence results in injury or other consequences. The excuse of "punishing a criminal" does not absolve one of criminal liability.

Article 466 of the Criminal Code governs the crime of assault. Paragraph (1) threatens perpetrators with a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months or a category III fine. If the assault results in serious injury, the penalty increases to a maximum of 5 years (paragraph 2), and if it results in death, the penalty can reach 7 years (paragraph 3). This provision applies even if the perpetrator claims the victim was a criminal.

Premeditation also affects criminal liability. Article 467 of the Criminal Code governs premeditated assault. This article is relevant if the violence was not spontaneous, such as when a group intentionally seeks out, approaches, and assaults someone they believe has committed a crime. Article 468 governs serious assault. Vigilantism can escalate from simple battery to violence causing serious injury because it is carried out by many people simultaneously. If the elements are met, the act can no longer be viewed as "social punishment." Article 469 governs premeditated serious assault, which results in severe injury or death. Premeditation indicates that the act was not a spontaneous reaction but violence intentionally directed at a specific person. The pretext of "upholding justice" does not automatically remove criminal liability. The severity of the liability depends on the nature of the act, the situation at the time of the incident, and the consequences suffered by the victim.

Consequently, vigilantism is fundamentally contrary to the principles of a rule-of-law state, as the authority to determine guilt and impose punishment rests with law enforcement mechanisms, not the public. While the public has the right to report crimes and assist in their prevention, violence against those merely suspected of wrongdoing cannot be justified. Such actions violate the presumption of innocence as well as the rights to personal protection, honor, and legal certainty. The excuse of "teaching a lesson" or frustration with law enforcement does not negate the unlawful nature of the act. Vigilantism is not a form of community law enforcement but an act that creates new legal violations.

In conclusion, the public has no authority to unilaterally determine guilt or impose punishment, and mobbing a suspected perpetrator can lead to criminal charges for the participants, as is currently being faced by the five suspects in the Tabanan case. Law enforcement efforts must continue to be carried out through authorized officials and established procedures to ensure legal certainty, the protection of human rights, and a fair judicial process.