The Petitioners’ legal counsels Feerdi Annes, Saut Roy Andrian, Antonius Nugroho Bimo Prakoso (left to right) at the preliminary hearing for case No. 16/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Criminal Code, Thursday (3/13/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) on Thursday, March 13, 2025. The petition for case No. 16/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by farmers Lesmar Rumasondi and Lamson Sidabariba and civil servant (PNS) R. Odjahan Silalahi.

The three Petitioners are currently serving six-month prison sentences in Sidikalang after being found guilty by the Sidikalang District Court on March 7, 2024 of “committing violence against property” under Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. The verdict was later upheld by the Medan High Court and the Indonesian Supreme Court, with aggravated sentence from five months to six months.

Before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and members of the panel, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Saut Roy Andrian argued that the implementation of Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code on the Petitioners’ case was inaccurate.

The Petitioners argued that the article, which is under Chapter V of the Criminal Code on violence against public order, can be interpreted through several methods in criminal law, all of which conclude that the norm regulates “open violence.” In the Netherlands, the origin of the Indonesian Criminal Code, this term is known as openlijk geweld. However, they argued that the current formulation in Article 170 of the Criminal Code does not explicitly link the element of violence to public order.

“The method of interpretation of criminal law shows that Article 170 relates to open violence in the context of public order. However, in the formulation of this article, the connection with public order is not clear, so we argue that Article 170 of the Criminal Code does not satisfy the principles lex stricta, lex scripta, and lex certa,” said Andrian.

The Petitioners further argued that the article leaves room for multiple interpretations, which in turn can lead to legal uncertainty. According to them, the element of violence in this article does not always refer to actions that cause damage to goods or physical injury, but can also include actions such as messing up merchandises or pushing someone on the highway. However, if the violence results in damage or injury, then it is considered excessive.

They also argued that the article does not fulfill the principle of legality in criminal law, specifically lex stricta, lex scripta, and lex certa. From a grammar standpoint, it is difficult to understand due to the use of terms such as “openly,” “joint force,” and “violence,” which are not explicitly defined, thus potentially causing multiple interpretations. It is even more confusing when paragraph (1) is linked to paragraph (2) of the same article.

The Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 170 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding. They asked that it be declared constitutional only if interpreted as, “Any group of ten persons or more who deliberately and unlawfully commit violence in public as their immediate objective against persons or property, in a manner that disturb society’s natural order, shall be punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years and six months.”

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the Petitioners to revise the petition following the format specified in Article 10 of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. “Other irrelevant matters should not be included,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah asked the Petitioners to include several Supreme Court decisions on the implementation of Article 170 of the Criminal Code that have become jurisprudence. “Therefore, the argument of erroneous implementation of the norm can be more reasonable. The context will also be clearer in showing the potential contradiction between the norm and the Constitution,” he explained.

The panel gave the Petitioners 14 days to revise the petition, which must be received by the Court no later than Wednesday, March 26, 2025.

Read the petition for case No. 16/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Fauzan F.
Translator  : 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.

---