The Petitioners presenting the petition revisions at a judicial review hearing for the new Criminal Code, Monday (1/26/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another hearing to examine Case No. 271/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Monday, January 26, 2026. It was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (chair) and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Asrul Sani.

The petition was filed by a number undergraduate law students. At this second hearing, the Petitioners’ counsel Shalza Ivalyne Dyvta Saputro delivered the revisions to the petition.

These revisions include those on the Petitioners’ legal standing, the posita (reason behind the petition), and evidence. “There is also the addition of new petitioners—Petitioners XIII and XIV—and the exclusion of Petitioner XV. There is also the addition of tables, elaboration of actual and potential [harm], as well as elaboration of reasons behind the petition,” Shalza said.

Also read: Students Question Guarantees of Freedom of Expression in Public Spaces

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, January 12, 2026, the Petitioners—Tommy Juliandi, lka Aniyati, and others—presented their challenge of the material content of Article 256 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP).

Article 256 of the Criminal Code reads: “Any Person who, without prior notification to the authorities, organize a march, rally, or demonstration on a public road or public place that causes disturbance to the public interests, creates commotion, or riots within the community, shall be sentenced with imprisonment for a maximum of 6 (six) months or a maximum criminal fine of category II.”

The Petitioners argued that expressing opinions does not require prior permission, as it is a guaranteed right directly protected by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Peaceful protests are, in essence, a form of non-electoral political participation and a manifestation of citizens’ participation in overseeing government performance or policies through public discussion. However, the challenged article delegitimizes popular political participation by placing such activities in a position where they risk being classified as unlawful acts.

According to the Petitioners, the norm in the challenged provision can be interpreted as providing a legal basis for law enforcement officers to take action against citizens who express opinions without prior administrative notification. In addition, the criminal sanctions contained in the provision concretely create fear and self-censorship among the public in conducting protests or organizing social activities.

The Petitioners further argued that the provision fails to uphold demonstrations as an essential element in nation-building and carries the potential to intimidate. The norm is also inconsistent with international legal standards. Indonesia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) through Law No. 12 of 2005, which provides clear guidance that: the right of peaceful assembly is a fundamental right that must be protected, not merely tolerated; restrictions must be interpreted narrowly; disruption to traffic or daily activities is not a legitimate ground to restrict the right of assembly; and a notification system must be distinguished from an authorization or permit system, with the state prohibited from criminalizing the exercise of the right of assembly solely due to the absence of notification.

Explore case No. 271/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
Translators   : 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.

---