Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights (Human Rights Law) included in the 2026 National Legislation Program is currently being revised by the Ministry of Human Rights. We, a network of civil society organizations working on human rights issues, view this regulatory update as crucial to strengthen the protection and fulfillment of human rights. On the other hand, the current draft of the Human Rights Bill still poses various issues, ranging from limited access to information, minimal meaningful public participation, to several procedural issues in the enforcement of human rights in its substance. There are several critical notes that need to be addressed collectively:

Restriction of Civil Rights Potentially Threatening Civil Space

At least seven articles regulate the restriction of civil rights on grounds of national security, public order, public morality, and public interest (Article 14, Article 19, Article 20, Article 21, Article 27, Article 49). These formulations adopt the provisions of IHRL but fail to integrate strict limitation principles as stipulated in the Siracusa Principles. Phrases such as “public order,” “public morality,” and “national security” have the potential to become vague provisions used to limit freedom of religion, expression, and assembly. The lack of clear boundaries opens up room for security forces’ discretion and increases the risk of criminalization of minority groups, human rights defenders, and civil society. The Human Rights Bill also lacks provisions regarding objective assessments as considerations for imposing restrictions on rights, mechanisms to challenge abused restrictions, and does not distinctly differentiate between the concept of limitation and derogation, hence potentially leading to misuse in its implementation.

Narrow Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Incomplete Regulation of HRDs

Although Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) are legally recognized in Article 1 paragraph (14) and provided protection through immunity from criminal charges and civil suits (Article 115) in line with the Anti-SLAPP concept, the formulation of these articles is limited by subjective conditions such as “non-violence” and “good faith,” which are susceptible to narrow interpretations by law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, this regulation does not accommodate the specific needs of Women HRDs and Environmental HRDs facing gender-based violence and layered vulnerabilities. There is no comprehensive and responsive mechanism for protection, complaints, risk mitigation, and holistic recovery for HRDs.

Lack of Independence in Procedures and Threats to Addressing Past Gross Human Rights Violations

The removal of provisions regarding the non-retroactive principle exception (previously stipulated in the Human Rights Law) creates obstacles to addressing past gross human rights violations (Article 18). In practice, international law recognizes limited exceptions to the non-retroactive principle to prosecute various serious crimes recognized under customary international law. Furthermore, the regulation of the investigative function of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) is unclear, potentially placing Komnas HAM under the coordination of the Police if referring to the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (Article 78). This condition could restrict the independence of Komnas HAM in handling cases of gross human rights violations closely related to state actors.

Uncertainty in the Competent Judicial Forum for Filing Human Rights Violation Lawsuits and Mechanisms for Victim Recovery

The lack of clarity regarding the jurisdiction or competent judicial forum to examine requests or lawsuits for human rights violations (Article 121 paragraph (1)) may pose risks of requests or lawsuits being declared inadmissible due to the lack of absolute competence clarity. Additionally, this provision does not specifically regulate the objects that can be filed. This article also has the potential to burden victims with heavy burdens of proof and overlap with the authority of the National Human Rights Commission (LPSK) and the recovery mechanisms stipulated in the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code and the Human Rights Court Law.

Ambiguity in the Regulation of the Functions, Authorities, and Institutionalization of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

There is significant authority granted to the Ministry of Human Rights in monitoring, supervising, assessing compliance, and following up on human rights issues. This condition could blur the line between the government as the duty-bearer of human rights and the NHRC as an independent monitoring body, potentially compromising the objectivity and independence of human rights monitoring mechanisms. On the other hand, the regulations regarding the National Women’s Commission, KPAI, and KND are much more limited compared to the NHRC. Functions, authorities, as well as mechanisms for complaints, investigations, and recommendations are not adequately regulated