The ruling hearing for case No. 16/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of the Criminal Code, Wednesday (5/14/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the entire material judicial review petition of Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP). The petition was filed by civil servant (PNS) R. Odjahan Silalahi and farmers Lesmar Rumasondi and Lamson Sidabariba. The ruling hearing for case No. 16/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday, May 14, 2025.
The Petitioners are currently serving a six-month prison sentence in Sidikalang after being found guilty by the Sidikalang District Court of 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.
In its legal consideration, delivered by Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani, the Court stated that the Petitioners’ argument of open violence under said article was flawed and did not meet the legality principles in criminal justice: lex stricta, lex scripta, and lex certa.
“The [norm] does not expressly mention ‘disturbance of public order,’ thus leading to multiple interpretations, which allow Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code be interpreted broadly and applied to cases where public order is not disturbed. With regard to the Petitioners’ arguments, the Court believes that, doctrinally, ‘open violence’ is violence committed by individuals or groups to other people or other groups openly. The word ‘open’ means that the violence is committed in the open or at least in a place where the public can easily find out without anything concealing it, so that they can freely see the events committed by the perpetrator or perpetrators,” he said.
Therefore, the essential issue at issue the Petitioners questioned is the absence of affirmation of the phrase ‘open violence’ in the article does not necessarily make it cause legal uncertainty and multiple interpretations among law enforcement because it has been reflected in the norm. Thus, the Court argued, if the phrase ‘open violence’ be added to it, it would actually cause redundancy, thus can cause legal uncertainty.
The Petitioners argued that Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code does not expressly mention “disturbing public order,” thus giving rise to multiple interpretations. Their wish that the phrase be attached to the article, the Court held, was excessive, as the norm in the a quo Law has been regulated under Chapter V on crimes against public order.
Therefore, doctrinally the norms of the articles in that Chapter cannot be separated from the main issue of the type of criminal offense regulated in each chapter of the Criminal Code, including in this case Chapter V. Furthermore, Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code regulates the criminal sanction for perpetrators of criminal offenses related to “with united forces openly commit violence against persons or property.”
The aforementioned formulation has confirmed that the criminal offenses under Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code are committed openly or in public, or at least are not concealed and can be seen by the public should they want to.
Thus, in the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court held that within the limits of reasonable reasoning, criminal offenses committed in public as set forth in the norm of Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code clearly and unequivocally will cause disturbance to public order or the community, and can potentially even cause harm to others, such as physical harm or property damage, or at least the loss of a sense of security and peace in society. Thus, the Petitioners’ wish that the affirmation of the phrase “disturbing public order” be added to Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code was excessive and unfounded and could potentially cause legal uncertainty.
Furthermore, the Court held that the absence of the phrases “intentionally” and “against the law” in the norm, which the Petitioners questioned, cannot be separated from the phrase “with united forces openly commit violence against persons or property” in the norm. The Court argued that within the limits of reasonable reasoning, it is impossible for a perpetrator to “openly commit violence against persons or property with united forces” without intent. Such an act of violence must have been realized and thought out.
The Court also held that a perpetrator must also has realized the phrase “against the law,” because the object of violence is other persons or property. Therefore, the absence of the phrases “intentionally” and “against the law” does not necessarily mean that the article is multi-interpretive and causing legal uncertainty.
Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Petitioners’ argument that the absence of the phrases “intentionally” and “against the law” in the phrase “open violence” in Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code has made the a quo flawed was unreasonable according to law.
Also read:
Farmers, Civil Servant Challenge Provision on Violence in Criminal Code
Petitioners Revise Petition on Violence in Criminal Code
The Petitioners previously 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 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 legal counsel Andrian at the preliminary hearing on Thursday, March 13.
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.
Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code reads, “Persons who with united forces openly commit violence against persons or property, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of five years and six months.” In the petitum, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare it 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.”
Read the decision 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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2025 | 17:16 WIB 133