Construction of Legitimacy in the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code Legislative Speech: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Analysis

Authors

  • Berlian Ayu Pangestu Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Endry Boeriswati Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Sudarya Permana Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/ijssh.v4i2.2366

Keywords:

Legitimacy, Theo Van Leeuwen, Halliday’s SFL, 2025 KUHAP, Legislative Speech

Abstract

This study aims to analyze legitimization strategies in the report delivered by the Chairman of Commission III of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI) prior to the ratification of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia The focus of the study is directed toward how language is used to construct legitimacy for legal reform through particular linguistic devices. This research employs Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach and Theo van Leeuwen’s theory of legitimacy. SFL is used to identify linguistic structures within the speech text, while van Leeuwen’s legitimacy theory is used to explain the legitimizing functions of these linguistic choices. The research data consist of the transcript of the video report delivered by the Chairman of Commission III of the DPR RI during the plenary session on the ratification of the 2025 KUHAP. The analysis was conducted qualitatively by identifying linguistic elements such as modality, nominalization, material processes, relational processes, passive constructions, and evaluative lexical choices. The findings reveal that the speech of Commission III of the DPR RI constructs legitimacy through several major strategies, namely legal-formal authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, procedural legitimation, and the delegitimization of public criticism. These legitimization strategies are realized through the use of high modality, nominalization, passive constructions, legality-based thematic structures, and evaluative lexical choices that construct the image of the state as a legal, rational, humane, and procedural institution. This study demonstrates that language in legislative speeches functions not only as a means of conveying legal information, but also as an instrument of institutional legitimacy to build public acceptance of state legal reforms. Therefore, this study confirms that language practices in legislative forums play an important role in shaping representations of power, legality, and the relationship between the state and society.

References

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed.). Macquarie University.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. Bloomsbury.

KompasTV. (2025, November 18). Rapat Paripurna DPR RI pengesahan RUU KUHAP [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEr2qHQ1z4M&t=111s

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Sage Publications.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Mashud, M., Ferdiansa, D., & Hamzah, N. A. (2024). Analisis wacana kritis van Leeuwen pada wacana “Main Dua Kaki Profesor Eddy” dalam berita Detik.com. Literasi, 8(2), 189–200.

Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395442

Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927

Rumaf, N., dkk. (2025). Representasi kekuasaan dalam teks pidato Presiden Prabowo Subianto. Onoma: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra.

Tambunan, R. (2024). Hegemoni dan resistensi dalam pidato kampanye: Analisis wacana kritis terhadap strategi legitimasi. Sinonim: Journal of Language and Literature, 2(1).

Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.

Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Zakaria, M., Elyana, K., Putri, N. N., & Hidayah, I. R. (2025). Representasi aktor sosial dalam pidato kenegaraan 15 Agustus 2025: Analisis wacana model Theo van Leeuwen. Nusantara: Journal of Educational Research.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Ayu Pangestu, B., Boeriswati, E., & Permana, S. (2026). Construction of Legitimacy in the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code Legislative Speech: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Analysis. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(2), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.55681/ijssh.v4i2.2366