Punished Twice: Ne Bis in Idem between Dayak Kenyah Customary Sanctions and State Penal Liability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/gijlss.v4i4.1501Keywords:
Ne bis in Idem, Costumary Sanction, Legal Pruralism, Double Jeopardy, Indonesian Criminal CodeAbstract
Indonesia’s Criminal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023), effective since January 2026, recognises living law as a basis for criminal liability. However, this recognition does not automatically protect individuals from state prosecution after completing customary sanctions for conduct also criminalised by the Code. This article examines this problem through a documentary analysis of Dayak Kenyah customary justice in North Kalimantan. It employs doctrinal research combining statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, drawing on the United States dual sovereignty doctrine and Sarawak’s Native Courts. The analysis identifies a structural paradox: Article 2’s residual recognition of customary offences leaves sanctions for overlapping statutory offences without automatic ne bis in idem protection. It proposes a graduated interlock model under which completed customary sanctions would bar prosecution for minor and complaint-based offences and require sentencing credit for serious offences. Recognition would depend on identity of act and offender, functional equivalence of sanctions, completion, and compatibility with human rights. The model provides a framework for coordinating customary and state justice through prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines, protecting against double punishment while preserving accountability for serious offences.
References
A., U., M., S., & E., W. (2001). Ketergantungan masyarakat Dayak terhadap hutan di sekitar Taman Nasional Kayan Mentarang. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/000994
Adnyani, N. K. S., Marhaendra Wija Atmaja, G., & Ketut Sudantra, I. (2021). Indigenous People Between Recognition and Disclaimer of Legal Pluralism Perspective. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 8(9), 352. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i9.2762
Amar, A. R., & Marcus, J. L. (1995). Double Jeopardy Law after Rodney King. Columbia Law Review, 95(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123126
Anau, N., Hakim, A., Lekson, A. S., & Setyowati, E. (2019). LOCAL WISDOM PRACTICES OF DAYAK INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TANA’ ULEN IN THE KAYAN MENTARANG NATIONAL PARK OF MALINAU REGENCY, NORTH KALIMANTAN PROVINCE, INDONESIA. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 91(7), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2019-07.16
Andini, O. G. (2024). Dissecting the Position of Living Law in the Criminal Code 2023. Rechtidee, 19(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.21107/ri.v19i2.27640
Ariefulloh. (2023). The Reconstruction of Principles Legality of Terminating Prosecution by Restorative Justice in the Salatiga Prosecutor’s Office. In A. A. Nassihudin, T. Sudrajat, S. W. Handayani, A. Yuliantiningsih, & R. Ardhanariswari (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Law, Governance, and Social Justice (ICoLGaS 2023) (Vol. 805, pp. 85–97). Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-164-7_9
Asmawi, Fudhaili, A., Dahlan, A., Yunus, N. R., & Azizah. (2025). Living Law in Indonesia’s New Criminal Code: Legal Controversies and its Relevance with the Urf. Jurnal Hukum Islam, 23(2), 581–610. https://doi.org/10.28918/jhi.v23i2.07
Aunuh, N., Alam, S., & . T. (2024). Customary Law ``Bolit Mate Nawar Uman" As ``Living Law" in West Kutai Regency, East Kalimantan. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i21.14763
Balai Besar Penelitian Dipterokarpa, & Wiati, C. B. (2013). KAJIAN ATURAN ADAT PEMANFAATAN TANE’ OLEN OLEH MASYARAKAT LOKAL DI DESA SETULANG KABUPATEN MALINAU, KALIMANTAN TIMUR. Jurnal Penelitian Dipterokarpa, 7(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.20886/jped.2013.7.2.123-130
Berman, P. S. (2018). Legal Jurisdiction and the Deterritorialization of Data. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3134782
Burns, L. A. (1978). Criminal Jurisdiction: Double Jeopardy in Indian Country. American Indian Law Review, 6(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068076
Cooke, F. M. (2006). Expanding State Spaces Using ‘Idle’ Native Customary Land in Sarawak. In F. M. Cooke (Ed.), State, Communities and Forests In Contemporary Borneo (1st ed.). ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/SCFCB.07.2006.02
Dawi, K., Haryono, D., Yuliastini, A., & Astono, A. (2022). Restorative Justice Paradigm of Kanayat’n Dayak Customary Law on Environmental Damage Caused By Shifting Cultivation. Jurnal Analisis Hukum, 5(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.38043/jah.v5i2.3918
Dawson, M. A. (1992). Popular Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. The Yale Law Journal, 102(1), 281. https://doi.org/10.2307/796777
Efriani, E., & Agustinus, E. (2021). Reflection of the Concept of Sanctions and Law on the Tamambaloh Dayak Custom. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 23(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v23i2.20897
Eghenter, C. (2021). Tana’ ulen A vital conservation tradition for the recognition of territories of life in North Kalimantan, Indonesia. ICCA Consortium.
Elvaretta, D., Ghozali Nasid, A., Aulia Fitri, A., & Dena Putri, Y. (2022). Concepts and Provisions For Recovery Of A Case Through A Justice-Based Restorative Approach By The Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 15 In The Year 2020. Jurnal Sosial Sains, 3(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.36418/jurnalsosains.v3i1.670
Engle Merry, S. (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
Escobar, J. (2019). Double Jeopardy and Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Gamble v. United States. Revista de Derecho, (20), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.22235/rd.vi20.1842
Faisal, F., Rahayu, D. P., Haryadi, D., & Darc Noviayanti Manik, J. (2026). Seeking certainty in uncertainty: Integrating living law into indonesia’s criminal code to harmonize legal pluralism and indigenous justice: Buscando Certeza en la Incertidumbre: Integración de la Ley Viva en el Código Penal de Indonesia para Armonizar el Pluralismo Jurídico y la Justicia Indígena. Novum Jus, 20(1), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2026.20.1.15
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). https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v11i2.1232
Fetrus, F., Rekso Wibowo, B., & Yusuf Hasibuan, F. (2024). The Application of Dayak Customary Law In West Kalimantan Towards Fulfilling A Sense of Justice For Victims (Case Study of Indecent Acts). Asian Journal of Social and Humanities, 3(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.59888/ajosh.v3i1.424
Fifth Amendment. Double Jeopardy and the Doctrine of Dual Sovereignty. (1978a). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 69(4), 597. https://doi.org/10.2307/1142567
Fifth Amendment. Double Jeopardy and the Doctrine of Dual Sovereignty. (1978b). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 69(4), 597. https://doi.org/10.2307/1142567
Griffiths, J. (1986). What is Legal Pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18(24), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
Holzhaus, D. T. (1986). Double Jeopardy and Incremental Culpability: A Unitary Alternative to the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. Columbia Law Review, 86(8), 1697. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122539
I Made Bayu Masdyasa & Ni Made Jaya Senastri. (2026). Eksistensi Living Law Sebagai Sumber Hukum Tidak Tertulis dalam Budaya Masyarakat Indonesia. Jurnal Cendekia Hukum Indonesia, 2(1), 831–840. https://doi.org/10.71417/jchi.v2i1.191
Ismantara, S. (2023). The Urgency of Reconstructing Indonesia’s Justice System Towards Recognition of Customary Justice Institutions. West Science Law and Human Rights, 1(04), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.58812/wslhr.v1i04.318
Iwan Kurniawan, Riki Afrizal, & Putra, A. (2026). The Problematics of Applying Living Law as a Basis for Criminalization in the Indonesian Criminal Code. Jurist-Diction, 9(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v9i1.76922
Jungkung Madyo, N. (2023). Implementation of Local Wisdom in Stopping Prosecutions Based on Restorative Justice. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i3.12843
Madjid, A., & Istiqomah, M. (2023). Restorative Justice: A Suitable Response to Environmental Crime in Indonesia? Krytyka Prawa, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.622
Marglin, J., & Letteney, M. (2024). Legal Pluralism as a Category of Analysis. Law and History Review, 42(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0738248023000196
Marthin, M., Ratna, W. D., Arafat, Y., & . A. (2020). LEGAL ADMISSION OF LEGAL SOCIETY CONDUCTING THE NATIONAL PARK OF KAYAN MENTARANG (TNKM). JURNAL AKTA YUDISIA, 4(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.35334/ay.v4i2.1197
Merang, O. P., & Sari, I. A. (2024). Kelembagaan masyarakat dalam pengelolaan Hutan Adat di Desa Long Alango Kecamatan Bahau Hulu Kabupaten Malinau Provinsi Kalimantan Utara. ULIN: Jurnal Hutan Tropis, 8(1), 116. https://doi.org/10.32522/ujht.v8i1.14628
Michaels, R. (2009). Global Legal Pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5(1), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172311
Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 719–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/3052967
Mulyadi, L. (2010). Putusan Hakim dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia: Teori, Praktik, Teknik Penyusunan dan Permasalahannya. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Musmuliady, Jubair, & Kasim, A. (2022). Turn on the Living Law: The Construction and Implications of Living Law in Ratification of Draft Criminal Code (RKUHP). Rechtsidee, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v11i0.798
Nelson, J., Muhammed, N., & Rashid, R. A. (2016). Native Customary Rights: Does It Hold the Future of Sarawak’s Natives? Journal of Forest and Environmental Science, 32(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.7747/JFES.2016.32.1.82
Niko, N., Widiyani, H., Kurnianingsih, F., Solina, E., Endri, E., Yu, A. L., & Rahmaniah, S. E. (2026). THE LIVING LAW IN INDONESIA’S NEW CRIMINAL CODE: LEGAL PLURALISM, INDIGENOUS AUTONOMY, AND THE RISK OF STATE CO-OPTATION. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 55(1), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.55.1.2026.231-257
Pratama, A., Sugiyanto, S., Pamungkas, W. P. D., Aprianto, T., & Kadir, S. A. (2025). Reconceptualizing Theft Crimes in Indonesia’s 2023 Criminal Code: Living Law and Restorative Justice Critique. Kajian Ilmiah Hukum Dan Kenegaraan, 4(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.35912/kihan.v4i2.6469
Pujirahayu, E., & Wulandari, C. (2021). The Existence of Dayak Customary Council in Settlement of Criminal Cases Based on Local Awareness (Decision Study of Dayak Customary Council Section No. 01/SMAD-PA/I/2011). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Law, Economic, Governance, ICOLEG 2021, 29-30 June 2021, Semarang, Indonesia. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Law, Economic, Governance, ICOLEG 2021, 29-30 June 2021, Semarang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.29-6-2021.2312611
Samsoedin, I., Wijaya, A., & Sukiman, H. (2010). KONSEP TATA RUANG DAN PENGELOLAAN LAHAN PADA MASYARAKAT DAYAK KENYAH DI KALIMANTAN TIMUR. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 7(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.20886/jakk.2010.7.2.145-168
Selajar, S. Y., & Martha, A. E. (2023). Indonesian Criminal Code, Living Law and Control in Law Enforcement in Indonesia. SASI, 705–716. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v29i4.1697
Sueni, A. S., Fernando, Z. J., Putriyana, A., Lestarika, D. P., & Zulaika, A. N. (2025). LIVING LAW AND HYBRID JUSTICE: THE INTEGRATION OF CUSTOMARY CRIMINAL LAW IN INDONESIA’S 2023 NATIONAL CRIMINAL CODE. Jurnal Hukum Progresif, 13(2), 253–284. https://doi.org/10.14710/jhp.13.2.253-284
Sumika Putri, N. (2023). THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS AS THE CONCRETIZATION OF THE LIVING LEGAL SYSTEM IN SOCIETY (ADAT LAW) BASED ON ARTICLE 2 OF THE INDONESIAN PENAL CODE (KUHP) 2023. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 7(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.23920/jbmh.v7i2.1101
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Sarawak, Philip, B., Crown, S. E., & Unit for Other Religions (UNIFOR). (2023). MULTI-FACETED ETHNIC IDENTITY OF INDIGENOUS GROUPS IN EAST MALAYSIA: PROFOUND ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. Borneo Akademika, 7(2), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.24191/BA/v7i2/89639
Von Benda-Beckmann, F. (2002). Who’s Afraid of Legal Pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 34(47), 37–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2002.10756563
Yuherawan, D. S. B., Trisusilowati, Prasodjo, R., & Soraya, J. (2021). Criminal Actions Based on the Living Law in Draft-Criminal Code: Degradation of the Concept. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization. https://doi.org/10.7176/JLPG/112-02
Zubir, N. A., & Wook, I. (2024). TR SANDAH: WITHERING JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 15(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2024.15.1.1
Zumbansen, P. (2010). Transnational Legal Pluralism. Transnational Legal Theory, 1(2), 141–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2010.11424506
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aris Irawan, Fadhli Muhaimin Ishaq, Ishaq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright :
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:
- Copyright in each article belongs to the author.
- The author acknowledges that the Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (GIJLSS) has the right to be the first to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0).
- Authors can submit articles separately, arrange the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal to other versions (for example, sent to the author's institutional repository, publication in a book, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time at GIJLSS.
