<![CDATA[The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code introduces institutional changes to the Indonesian criminal justice system by formally regulating the plea bargain mechanism. This study aims to analyze the legal standing of the plea bargain mechanism within the Indonesian criminal law system, examine its implementation in handling assault cases at the Gunung Sitoli District Attorney’s Office, and identify the obstacles encountered in its execution. This study employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing secondary data comprising primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. Data collection was conducted through literature and document reviews, while data analysis was performed qualitatively using a deductive approach. The findings indicate that the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code provides a statutory basis for the plea bargain mechanism through three distinct avenues: Article 78 at the pre-trial stage; Article 205 following the reading of the indictment when restorative justice mechanisms fail; and Article 234 following the reading of the indictment for offenses carrying specific criminal penalties. The implementation in assault cases at the Gunung Sitoli District Attorney’s Office demonstrates that the plea bargain mechanism has been applied during the case examination process, while maintaining judicial oversight. In the cases examined, the defendants admitted guilt after restorative justice mediation failed, and the cases were subsequently tried under summary procedures. Structural and systemic obstacles to execution include procedural and regulatory issues, institutional readiness, resource constraints, limited access to legal counsel, the geographical conditions of the Nias Islands, inter-agency coordination among law enforcement, and the risk of involuntary admissions of guilt due to a lack of legal literacy among the public. Consequently, the effective implementation of the plea bargain mechanism requires institutional readiness, technical guidelines, robust legal representation, and adequate judicial oversight to ensure that judicial efficiency is achieved without compromising the rights of the accused.]]>
