<![CDATA[Introduction: The expansion of criminal sanctions into administrative violations and private conduct raises concerns about the proper limits of criminal law in Indonesia. The central issue is how to distinguish legitimate criminalization from overcriminalization while protecting public interests and individual rights. Purposes of the Research: This study examines the forms of overcriminalization in Indonesian criminal law, evaluates their compatibility with proportionality and the ultimum remedium principle, and identifies normative directions for criminalization reform. Methods of the Research: This study employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials, including relevant criminal provisions, are examined alongside secondary legal scholarship. Qualitative legal analysis is used to assess the legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality of criminal sanctions. Findings of the Research: The analysis identifies three areas requiring critical scrutiny: criminal sanctions attached to administrative violations, criminal provisions affecting civil liberties, and criminalization of conduct within the private sphere. The article also discusses prison overcrowding and criminal justice system burdens as potential consequences of excessive penal intervention. However, the causal contribution of overcriminalization requires further assessment against other structural factors. A proportionate criminalization policy should consider the seriousness of harm, the necessity of penal intervention, the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and the relationship between the offense and the severity of sanctions. Conclusion: Criminalization reform in Indonesia should adopt a structured normative assessment grounded in legality, proportionality, necessity, and ultimum remedium. This framework can help legislators distinguish conduct requiring penal intervention from conduct more appropriately addressed through administrative, civil, or restorative mechanisms.]]>
