International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

This study aims to analyze the problem of legal certainty in the application of living law in criminal law, particularly following its recognition in Government Regulation No. 55 of 2025. The integration of living law without clear normative boundaries has the potential to create legal uncertainty, disparity in rulings, and uncontrolled expansion of judicial discretion. This situation highlights a tension between the need for legal certainty, as guaranteed by the principle of legality, and the demand for substantive justice that exists within society. This study employs a normative legal method with a conceptual and statutory approach. Qualitative analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between the principle of legality and living law, as well as to formulate a normative model capable of reconciling the two. The research findings indicate that the primary issue does not lie in the recognition of living law as a concept, but rather in the absence of clear criteria and structured verification mechanisms in its application. To address this issue, this study proposes a model of limited legality based on judicial verification, which positions the principle of legality as the primary rule, while treating living law as a secondary consideration that can only be applied through the fulfillment of cumulative requirements and strict verification mechanisms. This model implies a limitation on judicial discretion within a normative framework that is testable and accountable, thereby maintaining a balance between legal certainty and substantive justice within the criminal law system. Thus, the proposed model functions not only as a mechanism for reconciliation but also as a normative control instrument over the application of living law.

Principle of Legality; Living Law; Legal Certainty; Judicial Discretion; Judicial Verification; Limited Legality

1. Alexy, R. (2000). On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris, 13(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00157
2. Andra, J. (2020). DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA DI WILAYAH HUKUM PENGADILAN NEGERI BANGKINANG. Jurnal Panji Keadilan : Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Mahasiswa Hukum, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.36085/jpk.v3i2.1198
3. Ario, D., Situngkir, S. A., Situngkir, F., & Elviandri. (2025). Living Law, Kepastian Hukum, dan Hak Asasi Manusia: Politik Hukum dalam KUHP 2023 di Indonesia. Lentera, 7(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.32505/lentera.v7i1.13426
4. Ashworth, A., & Horder, J. (2013). Principles of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford.
5. Bedner, A. (2010). An Elementary Approach to the Rule of Law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 2(1), 48–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404510100037
6. Benda-Beckmann, F. von, & Benda-Beckmann, K. von. (2006). The dynamics of legal pluralism. Dalam Dynamics of plural legal orders (hlm. 1–41). https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/the-dynamics-of-legal-pluralism/
7. Burbank, S. B. (2008). Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability & Interbranch Relations on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40544057?seq=1
8. Cotterrell, R. (2006). Law, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
9. Deviyanti, D. (2025). Konsep Asas Legalitas Terhadap Pengaturan Living Law dalam Pembaharuan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Terkait Fungsi Penuntutan oleh Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana. The Prosecutor Law Review, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.64843/prolev.v3i3.72
10. Duff, R. A. (2010). A criminal law for citizens. Theoretical Criminology, 14(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480610369784
11. Ehrlich, E. (1936). Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Transaction Publishers.
12. Epstein, L. (1998). The Choices Justices Make. Lee Epstein. https://epstein.wustl.edu/choices
13. Febrianty, Y., Ishwara, A. S. S., Priambada, B. S., & Hulwanullah, H. (2023). The Limitations of Living Law in Indonesian Criminal Law Reform: An Effort to Realize Justice. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan, 11(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v11i2.1232
14. Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic concepts of Criminal law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195121704.001.0001
15. Fuller, L. L. (1969). The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.
16. Gregorio, E., Kusumastuti, D. A., & Kesuma, I. G. K. W. (2024). Implikasi Pelunakan Pengaturan Asas Legalitas dalam KUHPN Terhadap Konsep ‘Hukum Yang Hidup Dalam Masyarakat’. Jurist-Diction, 7(2), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v7i2.56124
17. Griffiths, John. (1986). What is Legal Pluralism?: Legal Pluralism and Critical Social Analysis: Vol 18 , No 24—Get Access. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
18. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). THE CONCEPT OF LAW. By H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Pp. Viii, 263. 21s. | The American Journal of Jurisprudence | Oxford Academic. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/ajj/article-abstract/7/1/169/213851?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false&utm
19. Hidayat, S., Andryani, Y., Rifa’I, I. J., & Muliani, R. Y. (2025). Pergeseran Asas Legalitas Formal ke Material dalam KUHP Baru dan Konsekuensinya terhadap Hukum Adat. Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia, 11(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v11i1.5160
20. Hirschl, R. (2008). The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(Volume 11, 2008), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.183906
21. Laia, Y. A. (2025). DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM ATAS TINDAK PIDANA KEKERASAN SECARA BERSAMA-SAMA YANG MENGAKIBATKAN KEMATIAN [S1, Universitas Malikussaleh]. https://doi.org/10/Full-text.pdf
22. Lindsey, T., & Butt, S. (2018). Indonesian Law. Oxford University Press.
23. Lubis, I., Siregar, T., Lubis, D. I. S., Adawiyah, R., & Lubis, A. H. (2025). Integrasi Hukum Adat dalam Sistem Hukum Agraria Nasional: Tantangan dan Solusi dalam Pengakuan Hak Ulayat. Tunas Agraria, 8(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.31292/jta.v8i2.401
24. Marzuki, P. M. (2016). PENGANTAR METODE PENELITIAN HUKUM : Edisi Revisi / Prof. Dr. Peter Mahmud Marzuki | PERPUSTAKAAN TERINTEGRASI UNIV. HASANUDDIN. Kencana. https://opac-library.unhas.ac.id/opac/detail-opac?id=58466&utm
25. Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
26. Moeliono, T. P., & Wulandari, W. (2015). Asas Legalitas dalam Hukum Acara Pidana: Kritikan terhadap Putusan MK tentang Praperadilan. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 22(4), 594–616. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol22.iss4.art4
27. Moeljatno. (2008). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Rineka Cipta.
28. Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. Transaction Publishers.
29. Nurdin, F. S. (2016). REKONSTRUKSI ASAS LEGALITAS DALAM HUKUM PIDANA BERDASARKAN PRINSIP KEADILAN | Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. https://ejournal.uksw.edu/refleksihukum/article/view/634
30. Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum progresif: Sebuah sintesa hukum Indonesia. Genta Pub.
31. Ramadhani, M. (2024). Tantangan Implementasi Pengakuan Hukum Adat dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Baru di Indonesia. Syntax Idea, 6(8), 2708–3716. https://doi.org/10.46799/syntax-idea.v6i8.4356
32. Raz, J. (1979). Oxford Scholarship Online. https://www.philosophyandlaw.org/Syllabi/Philosophers/Raz/Rule%20of%20Law%20and%20its%20Virtue_%20%20Joseph%20Raz.pdf
33. Raz, J. (1979b). The authority of law: Essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253457.001.0001
34. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2011). The Rule of Law and Legal Pluralism in Development. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511100019
35. Toatubun, N., & Djamaludin, D. (2024). The Dialectics of the Principle of Legality and Living Law in the National Criminal Law System Post-Enactment of Law No. 1 of 2023. JIHK, 6(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.46924/jihk.v6i1.253
36. Wanggai, F. R. M., Hartono, M. S., & Parwati, N. P. E. (2026). Penerapan Living Law Dalam Kuhp Baru Dan Pengaruhnya Terhadap Asas Legalitas Serta Kepastian Hukum Di Indonesia. Al-Zayn : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum, 4(1), 6993–6999. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v4i1.4517
37. Yanto, A., & Hikmah, F. (2023). Akomodasi Hukum Yang Hidup Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Nasional Menurut Perspektif Asas Legalitas. Recht Studiosum Law Review, 2(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.32734/rslr.v2i2.14162
38. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
39. Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.
40. Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana.
41. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 55 Tahun 2025 tentang Tata Cara dan Kriteria Penetapan Hukum yang Hidup dalam Masyarakat.