The Petitioners and their counsels delivering the revisions to the petition for the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Tuesday (1/27/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for Case No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Articles 240 and 241 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) against the 1945 Constitution. The panel hearing, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra alongside Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Asrul Sani, took place in a panel courtroom

The Petitioners are Tania Iskandar, Sila Fide Novira Nggebu, Muhammad Restu, Yuni Wulan Ningsih, Ika Minawati, Putra Muhamad Fadilla, Tasya Ayu Hapsari, Mawar Prasiska Nur Rizki, and Riesa Zhafirah (Petitioners I-IX).

Counsel Lala Komalawati explained the revisions to the petition, which include expansion to the object of review, from only Article 411 paragraph (2) to Article 411 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 412 paragraphs (1) and (2).

“Next, the Petitioners’ legal standing, in which constitutional harm suffered due to the enforcement of the article a quo can be proven. Especially that originating from the ambiguity of the subject of complaint and expansion of state intervention into private matters in terms of litigated crimes,” she said while attending the hearing directly from one of the Court’s panel courtrooms.

In the revised petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 240 and Article 241 of the new Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Also read: At Risk of Criminalization for Criticizing Govt, Students Challenge Criminal Code

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, Priskila Octaviani, counsel for the Petitioners, argued that the enforcement of Article 240 of the Criminal Code directly places the Petitioners in a position vulnerable to restrictions and criminalization in the exercise of their constitutional rights. This is because the phrase “insulting the government or a state institution” in the provision a quo does not provide a clear definition or objective parameters, thereby opening broad and subjective interpretive space—particularly in distinguishing between criticism, academic assessment, and political expression, on the one hand, and conduct categorized as “insult,” on the other.

The Petitioners contend that the Elucidation to Article 240 fails to provide firm and measurable parameters to distinguish criticism, academic assessment, political expression, satire, and conduct that may be criminally sanctioned as “insult.” As a result, citizens, including the Petitioners, cannot reasonably predict when a lawful expression may transform into a criminal offense.

The Petitioners further argue that the enforcement of Article 241 of the Criminal Code significantly expands the scope for criminalization, as it targets any person who broadcasts, displays, affixes writings or images, plays recordings, or disseminates through information technology media any expression deemed to contain an insult against the government or a state institution, with the intent that it be publicly known.

In substance, this norm directly targets the Petitioners’ activities as law students who actively use social media, online discussion platforms, and information technology media to disseminate ideas, analyses, and critiques of public policy. The Petitioners are threatened not only when creating an expression, but also when disseminating or sharing the expressions of others, including activities commonly associated with academic and social engagement. If such conduct is deemed an insult based on subjective interpretation, the provision creates a real and disproportionate threat to the Petitioners’ freedom of expression.

Explore case No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---