The Petitioners’ legal counsel at the ruling hearing for Case No. 143/PUU-XXII/2024, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The ruling hearing for the judicial review petition of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) for case No. 143/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on January 3, 2025. The petition was filed by Muhammad Amir Rahayaan, Hamka Arsad Refra, Harso Ohoiwer, and Hasanudin Raharusun.

“[The Court adjucated], declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

According to the legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur, the Court stated that the legal considerations for the Decision No. 7/PUU-XXI/2023 mutatis mutandis also apply to the a quo decision. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition. Even if they had and the Court considered the merits of the petition, quod non, as Article 218 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 219 of Law No. 1 of 2023 have not yet taken effect and do not have binding legal force, the Court held that the Petitioners’ petition was premature.

Justice Ridwan stated, “Although the Court had the authority to hear the petition, because the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court did not consider the merits. Other matters were not considered further because they were deemed irrelevant.”

Also read:

Provision on Defamation Against President Challenged

Challengers of Provisions on Defamation in Criminal Code Revise Legal Standing

The Petitioners argued that Article 218 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code explains that any assault on the honor and dignity of the president or vice president shall be punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of three years and six months or a maximum criminal fine of category IV. Meanwhile, they explained, Article 219 explains that broadcast or display of such an assault shall be punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of four years and six months or a maximum criminal fine of category IV.

They believed these articles uses the lèse-majesté or lese-majesty approach on any acts or offenses that showed disrespect or lack of respect against a monarch or sovereign in a monarchy. They argued these articles were irrelevant with a democratic republic, where the president is not interpreted as a symbol of the state under Article 36A of the 1945 Constitution.

They emphasized that the articles were erroneous by applying “first among equals” to the president’s dignity, arguing that it applied only with regard to the rights supporting the president’s duties, such as the right to security protection and other special state rights under Article 14 of the 1945 Constitution, not in the context of defamation.

Therefore, they requested that the Court declare Article 218 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 219 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, as they believed these provisions could not protect the dignity of the president, who is the head of state in the democratic republic.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR              : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator    : Dinita Aktivia/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---