Reformulation of the Concept of Restorative Justice in a Criminal Law System with Legal Certainty

The implementation of restorative justice in Indonesia faces a conflict of norms due to differing interpretations among law enforcement agencies. The police and the Prosecutor's Office consider restorative justice as a basis for terminating criminal proceedings without punishment, while the Supreme Court uses it as a consideration in granting conditional sentences without removing criminal responsibility. The research method used is normative juridical, with a statutory, conceptual, and case-based approach. The research findings indicate that the concept of restorative justice in Indonesia has not been able to guarantee justice and legal certainty due to differing interpretations among law enforcement agencies. Inconsistent application and the lack of a conceptual framework lead to different treatment at each stage of the criminal process, resulting in inconsistent outcomes and weakening the effectiveness of criminal case resolution mechanisms. This legal uncertainty is exacerbated by the scattered provisions of restorative justice in various sectoral legal instruments from the Police, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Court, with differing interpretations regarding whether the success of restorative justice ends the criminal case or merely influences the form of punishment. Therefore, reformulation of restorative justice regulations is an urgent need, aiming to establish a unified, coherent, and binding national normative design. This reformulation demands a uniform understanding of law enforcement officials, integration of authority between institutions within a single framework of criminal accountability, and explicit regulation of restorative justice in criminal procedural law through legislation, so that restorative justice has legal certainty and truly functions as a mechanism for fulfilling justice.