SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE USING NARCOTICS UNDER CONTEMPORARY INDONESIAN CRIMINAL LAW

Abstract

Substantive justice requires courts to evaluate narcotics offenses through lawful distinctions, individual circumstances, and enforceable rights. This article examines whether Indonesia’s rehabilitation framework can protect people prosecuted for personal narcotics use under legislation effective in 2026. Using normative legal research, it analyzes constitutional guarantees, narcotics legislation, recent criminal law reforms, judicial guidance, and a Constitutional Court decision, supported by twenty recently published journal articles. The analysis identifies persistent tensions between punishment and treatment, particularly when offense classifications, clinical assessments, and judicial discretion are inadequately explained. Comparative evidence also cautions against assuming that compulsory rehabilitation necessarily improves outcomes. The article develops a carefully structured judicial framework covering applicable law, proven conduct, health assessment, proportionality, and implementation. It argues that legally accountable enforcement requires individualized reasoning, accessible and effective healthcare, and consistent procedural safeguards. Rehabilitation should respond to demonstrated needs without replacing lawful adjudication or undermining personal dignity throughout the criminal process.