Warga mencegah tawuran divonis penjara – Apa batasan pembelaan terpaksa dan main hakim sendiri?

Seven residents in Sleman, Yogyakarta, have been sentenced to eight to 10 years in prison for attempting to prevent a brawl, an incident that tragically resulted in a fatality. This verdict has sparked widespread debate and disappointment among netizens, who are drawing parallels between this case and the self-defense action of Hogi Minaya, a man who confronted a snatch thief.

Advertisements

Court facts, as reported by Detik, reveal that the incident occurred in the early hours of Monday, June 9, 2025. MTP and RS were gathered with friends on Jalan Monjali Gg. Code I Gemawang. Some local residents, who would later become the convicted individuals, suspected the group was preparing for a brawl. They attempted to disperse them by threatening a search, during which a sarong containing sharp weapons was discovered. Following this discovery, one of the defendants reportedly brandished a sickle and pursued the fleeing teenagers. RS, attempting to escape, stumbled and was struck by the sickle. MTP was subsequently apprehended after being chased by motorcycle, then brutally assaulted, sustaining an “open wound to the abdomen” which proved fatal. “The panel of judges is convinced that these defendants are proven to have committed criminal acts as charged by the public prosecutor,” stated Jayadi Husain, the first spokesperson for PN Sleman.

This case has captivated netizens, who quickly linked it to klitih – the local term for random, unprovoked street violence prevalent in Yogyakarta and its surrounding areas. However, court proceedings found no evidence connecting this incident to klitih, according to Jayadi. The public also drew parallels to the widely publicized self-defense efforts of Adhe Pressly Hogiminaya, known as Hogi Minaya. Minaya, also a Sleman resident, was initially named a suspect in April 2025 after cornering a snatch thief who stole his wife’s bag, but his case was ultimately resolved through restorative justice. The overarching sentiment among netizens regarding the brawl prevention case is one of profound disappointment: that an attempt to prevent crime paradoxically led to criminal conviction.

This public dismay is “understandable,” explained Ari Wibowo, a criminal law expert at Universitas Islam Indonesia. He attributes it to the public’s deep-seated resentment towards brawls and klitih, suggesting that such overwhelming emotions can sometimes lead to acts of vigilantism. “Secondly,” he added, “there’s a diminishing public trust in law enforcement’s ability to uphold justice fairly.” Wibowo emphatically stated that the Sleman brawl prevention case, which resulted in a teenager’s death, lacked any element of legitimate self-defense. “Those two individuals were caught and then beaten. That constitutes vigilantism. It cannot be compared to a snatching case, like Hogi’s,” he clarified.

What Are the Conditions for Legitimate Self-Defense?

According to experts, several conditions must be met for an act to qualify as self-defense (noodweer) and exempt the perpetrator from criminal charges:

A sudden, dangerous attack, for instance, involving sharp weapons.
The attack must be unlawful, such as snatching or robbery.
There must be no other immediate alternative to save oneself or one’s property.
The defensive action must be taken instantly as the attack occurs.
The self-defense must be proportional or balanced to the nature of the attack.

“Under the provisions of criminal law, this constitutes a justifiable defense. So, while an individual may commit a criminal act, their actions are deemed legitimate,” Wibowo explained, affirming that Hogi Minaya’s case met these criteria. Both the old and new Indonesian Criminal Codes (KUHP) retain the self-defense article (noodweer) unchanged. Article 34 of the new KUHP stipulates: “Any person who is compelled to commit a prohibited act shall not be punished if the act is carried out in defense against an immediate unlawful attack or threat of attack against oneself or another person, honor in a moral sense, or one’s own or another’s property.” Professor Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, a criminal law expert from the University of Indonesia, concurs with this assessment. She maintains that there was no element of self-defense in the Sleman brawl prevention case. “Why should prevention involve sharp objects? In my opinion, there isn’t sufficient justification for their actions of prevention. How can prevention escalate to murder?” she questioned. Professor Harkristuti emphasized that cases involving self-defense must be supported by robust evidence: “first, there is an attack, then there is a response to that attack.”

Street Crime Cases Under Scrutiny by Parliament (DPR)

The Hogi Minaya case, having gone viral, garnered significant attention from the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR). On Wednesday, January 28, the DPR’s legal commission summoned key parties involved, including the Head of the Sleman District Attorney’s Office, the Sleman Police Chief, and Hogi Minaya’s legal counsel. “Commission III of the DPR RI requested that this case be dismissed in the interest of justice, guided by the provisions of Article 65 letter m of Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning KUHAP (Criminal Procedure Code) and the justifying reasons as stipulated in Article 34 of Law No. 1 Tahun 2023 concerning KUHP (Criminal Code),” stated Habiburokhman, Chairman of DPR Commission III. Just two days later, the Sleman Police Chief, Edy Setyanto Erning Wibowo, was deactivated by the Bhayangkara corps due to “weak leadership supervision.” This was deemed to have caused public uproar and damaged the police’s image. In addition to the police chief, the Sleman Traffic Police Head, AKP Mulyanto, was also removed from his position. However, Professor Harkristuti criticized this intervention, calling it “not elegant when law enforcement can be intervened by the legislature [DPR].” She suggested that such issues should ideally be resolved internally within the police through a structural approach. “Perhaps inform the National Police Chief, who then calls the regional police chiefs and provincial police chiefs. It should be resolved that way,” she asserted.

The Case of a Father Killing His Daughter’s Abuser

Chairman of DPR Commission III, Habiburokhman, also highlighted another criminal case involving a father, identified by his initials ED, who killed the perpetrator of sexual violence against his daughter. While acknowledging that the act of murder cannot be justified, Habiburokhman stressed the importance of delving into the circumstances that compelled ED to commit the act. “Namely, the traumatized state of knowing his child had been a victim of sexual violence for years by F (the alleged abuser),” Habiburokhman stated on Wednesday, February 11. The incident began with a report from the sexual abuse victim’s family to the Pariaman Resort Police on September 23, 2025. The following day, the reported perpetrator, F, was found in critical condition and rushed to Lubuk Basung General Hospital but did not survive. Police subsequently named ED as a suspect in F’s murder. Habiburokhman raised the possibility of applying the concept of excessive self-defense (noodweer exces). Article 43 of the new KUHP stipulates that a person shall not be punished if excessive self-defense is committed due to severe mental shock. Furthermore, he argued against imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment on ED. Citing Article 54 of the KUHP, Habiburokhman emphasized that judges must consider the perpetrator’s motive, purpose, and state of mind when sentencing. “Humanitarian factors, motive, and psychological background must be crucial considerations to achieve a just verdict,” said the Gerindra Party faction politician.

Defining Self-Defense (Noodweer) and Excessive Self-Defense (Noodweer Exces)

Self-defense (noodweer) and excessive self-defense (noodweer exces) are distinct legal concepts. Some legal experts explain that noodweer exces requires the presence of a direct attack. According to notes from Bantaeng District Court Judge Syailendra Anantya Prawira, the fundamental difference between the two lies in the perpetrator’s psychological state. “In noodweer, the act itself is considered lawful due to an emergency. Conversely, in noodweer exces, the act is still deemed unlawful, but the perpetrator is not blameworthy due to their severely shaken mental state,” he explained, as quoted by the Supreme Court website. Prawira further elaborated that excessive self-defense deviates from standard self-defense because the actions taken do not adhere to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; in other words, the threat is met with an overreaction. Syailendra cited renowned legal scholar Professor Sudarto, who outlined three prerequisites for excessive self-defense:

Exceeding the necessary limits.
The defense must be a direct consequence of severe mental shock.
This severe mental shock must be caused by an attack, establishing a causal link between the mental state and the aggression.

Professor Harkristuti also emphasized that the requirement for noodweer exces is a direct, spontaneous causal relationship between the attack and the mental shock. “So, it’s not about going home first, grabbing a sickle, then returning. That wouldn’t qualify. It must be an immediate act of self-defense,” she clarified. Chairul Huda, a criminal law expert at Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta, views the Pariaman case as a pure criminal act. “If this case involves a passage of time, and then he acts out of revenge against the rapist, then it is murder,” he stated. Nevertheless, Chairul suggests that the suspect, ED, may have a chance at a reduced sentence due to the motive for the killing being rooted in the defense of his daughter.

Awards for Apprehending Street Criminals

Irrespective of the legal perspectives on noodweer exces, an initiative is underway to socialize self-defense provisions within the police force, notably by granting awards to victims who successfully apprehend street criminals—an approach dubbed by criminal law experts as the “Hogi case effect.” Recently, the Yogyakarta City Police honored two students, Eviana Adi’ba Agustin and Ayunda, who, along with two other citizens, managed to chase down and apprehend a snatch thief on Monday, February 9. “Don’t be afraid to defend yourselves from criminals or pickpockets,” Eviana urged after receiving her award. Ayunda, her colleague, expressed “pride” in the local police’s appreciation, encouraging the public not to “hesitate [to apprehend perpetrators].” “We extend our appreciation to all four for assisting the police in preventing criminal acts. This is a source of pride, especially for the community and students in Yogyakarta; our long-standing socialization efforts have been successful,” stated Yogyakarta Police Chief, Commissioner Eva Guna Pandia. However, criminal law expert Ari Wibowo believes these award ceremonies are insufficient. He argues that the police should more clearly explain the specific criteria for legitimate self-defense situations. “Because not all acts of defense can serve as a justifying reason,” he noted. Another crucial message for the public, he added, is to avoid vigilantism. “If [the public] has the ability to make an arrest, then make the arrest, but the condition is that they must not take the law into their own hands and must immediately hand the perpetrator over to law enforcement,” Ari emphasized. Criminal law expert Chairul Huda is convinced that the Hogi Minaya case serves as a vital lesson for the police to act more professionally and “carefully” when designating victims as suspects. Chairul, who currently serves as an expert advisor to the National Police Chief, confirmed that he has proposed continuous socialization for such cases. “So that there is a new spirit, a new understanding among our apparatus, our police officers, regarding the paradigmatic changes in criminal law,” he stated. He also asserted that the Hogi case does not fully represent the police force’s image. “There are countless good, high-achieving police officers who have successfully resolved many cases,” he claimed.

Demands for Police Professionalism

Beyond the reforms concerning the application of self-defense articles related to street crime, the police force faces other significant challenges, particularly surrounding the controversy of “exceeding authority”—an issue that profoundly impacts the image of law enforcement but is seldom thoroughly scrutinized in parliament. A stark example is the alleged cases of violence during the August-September 2025 protests. A staggering 144 civil society organizations documented instances of visible official violence. Hundreds of individuals were arrested, with some reportedly experiencing abuse during the apprehension process. Criminal law expert Ari Wibowo noted that while arrested protestors underwent judicial proceedings, police officers who allegedly used violence outside legal procedures rarely faced public accountability. According to Ari, there is an urgent need for an “audit as accountability” regarding these alleged extra-procedural acts of violence. “If law enforcement officers act outside procedure, they should ideally face double sanctions: ethical sanctions and criminal sanctions,” Ari contended.

Journalist Mustaqim Ahmad in Yogyakarta contributed to this report.

Prosecution drops case of man who killed goat thief in Banten; family: ‘Hope for his release, he’s our backbone’
Victim of mugging becoming suspect, case dropped; police asked to ‘admit if mistakes were made’
Court acquits farmer in Bojonegoro accused of stealing village head’s rooster

Nine Bandung protesters convicted in connection with August 2025 demonstrations – ‘Don’t stop voicing your rights’
Police accused of ‘exceeding authority’ in handling August 2025 protests – ‘Powers expanding without significant oversight’
Brimob tactical vehicle driver who ran over Affan Kurniawan sentenced to seven-year demotion – ‘We ask for forgiveness’

Summary

Tujuh warga Sleman divonis 8-10 tahun penjara karena upaya mencegah tawuran yang berujung kematian satu remaja, memicu perdebatan publik dan perbandingan dengan kasus pembelaan diri Hogi Minaya. Para ahli hukum pidana menegaskan bahwa kasus Sleman adalah tindakan main hakim sendiri yang fatal, berbeda dengan tindakan Hogi yang dianggap pembelaan terpaksa (noodweer) yang sah. Kekecewaan publik dipahami mengingat maraknya kejahatan jalanan dan krisis kepercayaan terhadap penegakan hukum.

Pembelaan terpaksa memiliki syarat ketat seperti serangan mendadak, tidak ada alternatif, dan proporsional, yang tidak ditemukan dalam kasus Sleman menurut ahli. Polisi mulai mensosialisasikan ketentuan pembelaan diri dan memberikan penghargaan bagi warga yang menangkap pelaku kejahatan, namun ahli menyarankan penjelasan lebih jelas tentang kriterianya serta larangan main hakim sendiri. Di sisi lain, institusi Polri juga menghadapi tantangan besar terkait profesionalisme, termasuk penanganan isu “melampaui kewenangan” dan akuntabilitas aparat.