Petitioners in judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code (KUHP) presenting the main points of the petition on Thursday (2/5/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – Lodovikus Ignasius Lamury, Chris Melda Bani, and Melianus Alopada filed a petition for material review of Article 406 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on  Criminal Code (KUHP) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The Petitioners of Petition No. 41/PUU-XXIV/2026 stated that the article being challenged in the new Criminal Code Law opens up the implementation of excessive normative errors that shift the principle of "no punishment without error", without proof of personal error in the form of intent or negligence of the perpetrator.

"This situation shifts the fundamental principle of criminal law, namely, that there is no crime without fault, from personal fault (mens rea) to normative-moral fault, which is highly dependent on the subjective judgment of law enforcement officers and specific social contexts. This shift risks giving rise to punishments that are not based on individual criminal responsibility," Chris said during the preliminary hearing on Thursday, February 5, 2026.

Petitioners argue that the petition of Article 406 of the Criminal Code relies on an assessment of propriety or impropriety according to local social values, potentially using moral judgment as the basis for criminalization. In practice, such norms can lead to criminalization based on majority morality and create inconsistent law enforcement across regions and time periods.

According to Petitioners, the norm being challenged in this petition is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia because it does not guarantee fair legal certainty and is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia because it opens up opportunities for uncontrolled law enforcement in a state of law. The Petitioners view that the norm of Article 406 of the Criminal Code can only be declared constitutional if it is interpreted strictly, namely requiring the existence of personal error in the form of intent or negligence and not solely based on subjective moral or social value assessments.

Therefore, Petitioners in their petitum requested the Court to declare the phrase "violating morality" and "values that exist in society" in Article 406 of the Criminal Code to be conditionally constitutional as long as it is interpreted that its petition must require the existence of personal fault in the form of intent or negligence for which the perpetrator can be held responsible, and not solely based on subjective moral or social value assessments and stated that interpretations other than those referred to are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and do not have binding legal force.

The petition was heard by a panel of justices presided over  by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. During the advisory session, Justice Ridwan highlighted the inconsistencies in the wording of Article 406 of the Criminal Code cited by the Petitioners.

Justice Ridwan stated that the 13-page petition does not comply with the provisions stipulated in Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedures in Judicial Review Cases (PMK No. 7 of 2025. The Petitioners have not yet outlined the actual or potential constitutional rights losses they have experienced, nor have they explained the conflict between the norms being challenged and the articles in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia that are used as the test material or basis for challenging in this petition.

"This is your homework, you need to elaborate more so you can state it. From the start, you mentioned experiencing potential losses, but that's not explained here," said Justice Ridwan.

For your information, Article 406 of the Criminal Code states “Any person who: a. violates public morality; or b. violates morality in front of other people who are present without the will of the people present shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 1 (one) year or a maximum fine of category II. " Furthermore, in the Elucidation of Article 406 letter a of the Criminal Code it states "What is meant by "violating morality" is committing an act of displaying nudity, genitals, and sexual activity that is contrary to the values ​​that exist in society at the place and time the act is committed.

Before closing the hearing, Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioners have 14 days to revise their petitions. Both soft and hard copies of the revised petitions must be received by the Court no later than Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. WIB.

Explore case No. 41/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N. Rosi.

Translators : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---