The Reversed “Ultimum Remedium” Principle: When Criminal Law Becomes the Primary Means of Resolving Land Disputes

Abstract

In legal doctrine, criminal law is regarded as the ultimum remedium, the last resort after civil and administrative remedies have proven inadequate. However, in the practice of resolving land disputes in Indonesia, the trend is actually the opposite: criminal complaints alleging land encroachment, embezzlement, or document forgery are often used as the first step to pressure the opposing party, rather than as a last resort. This normative legal study employs legislative, conceptual, and case-based approaches to examine the underlying causes and legal implications of this reversal of the principle. The results of the study indicate that uncertainty regarding proof of ownership, unequal power dynamics, and the weak gatekeeping function of law enforcement officials are the primary causes of this phenomenon, which leads to the dysfunction of the criminal justice system and legal uncertainty. The enactment of the National Criminal Code has created an opportunity to strengthen the principle of ultimum remedium through a restorative approach, but this requires consistent implementation starting from the investigation stage.