<![CDATA[The necessity defense (noodweer) constitutes a ground for excluding criminal liability that legitimizes defensive acts against unlawful attacks. Although codified under Article 49 of the Penal Code and reaffirmed in Articles 34–35 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the National Criminal Code, its judicial application remains inconsistent in practice. This study examines Case No. 133/Pid.B/2024/PN.Lbo, in which the defendant had been judicially recognized as a victim in the prior Decision No. 70/Pid.B/2024/PN.Lbo, yet whose noodweer claim was nonetheless rejected. Employing a normative-empirical approach through doctrinal analysis, case study, and interviews with judges and advocates at the Limboto District Court, this study finds that the adjudicating panel confined its reasoning to the formal elements of assault under Article 351(1) of the Penal Code, without conducting a cumulative doctrinal assessment of subsidiarity, proportionality, and culpa in causa. The panel further characterized the incident as a mutual fight, thereby negating the defendants' defensive posture. This study argues that noodweer claims must be evaluated cumulatively and contextually to guarantee legal certainty and substantive justice.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
