The recognition of living law as the basis of criminal punishment in Law Number 1
of 2023 has sparked debate due to the conceptual gap between modern law and
customary law. Modern law adheres to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, is
uniform, deterrence-oriented, and relies on written codification. In contrast,
customary law exists within oral social practices, is local in character, restorative
in orientation, and grounded in the collective memory of the community. This
research aims to examine the conceptual gap and analyze harmonization strategies
to bridge the differences. Using normative legal research based on secondary data,
the findings reveal fundamental inconsistencies between the two legal regimes.
Therefore, harmonization is required through participatory formalization of
customary law, national guidelines ensuring accountability, alignment of
retributive and restorative orientations, and strengthening of local institutional
capacity. This study underscores the importance of a paradigm of legal pluralism
as the foundation for developing a national criminal law system that is not merely
oriented toward legislative technicalities, but also reflects substantive justice and
respect for local wisdom.