The Petitioner of the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code for Case No. 22/PUU-XXIV/2026 presenting the revisions to the petition, Friday (2/6/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Activist and treasurer of the National Student Executive Board of Nahdlatul Ulama Universities (BEM PTNU) Gangga Listiawan presented the revisions to his judicial review petition of Article 232 and Article 233 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) on Friday, February 6, 2026. The Petitioner of Case No. 22/PUU-XXIV/2026 believes the phrases “threat of violence,” “forces such institution and/or body to take or not to take a decision,” “obstructs the chairperson or members of a legislative institution and/or a government body,” and “without disturbance” in the provisions under review could potentially give rise to legal uncertainty.
“According to the Petitioner, these phrases are formulated in an unclear manner, are open to multiple interpretations, and have the potential to create legal uncertainty in their application,” Gangga stated at the petition revision hearing on Friday, February 6, 2026, in the Constitutional Court.
Article 232 provides: “Any Person who, by Violence or Threat of Violence, disperses a meeting of a legislative institution and/or a government body, or forces such institution and/or body to take or not take a decision, or expels the chairperson or members of such meeting, shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 6 (six) years.”
Article 233 provides: “Any Person who, by Violence or Threat of Violence, obstructs the chairperson or members of a legislative institution and/or a government body from attending a meeting of such institution and/or body, or from carrying out their duties freely and without disturbance in a meeting of such institution and/or body, shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 3 (three) years or a fine of up to category III.”
According to the Petitioner, Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code potentially and/or in fact conflict with the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28E paragraph (3). This is because, he argued, the norms under review are formulated without clear limits and definite legal standards, thereby opening broad and uncontrolled interpretive space for law enforcement authorities.
He further explained that the vagueness of the phrases in Articles 232 and 233 characterizes them as catch-all norms, namely norms that textually appear to prohibit certain conduct but, in practice, may be stretched and expanded in meaning according to the will of the interpreter without any objective limiting standards. Such a condition directly contradicts the principle of fair legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as it places citizens in a position of legal uncertainty and renders them vulnerable to disproportionate criminalization.
The Petitioner also contended that, in addition to violating the principle of legal certainty, Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code could potentially excessively restrict citizens’ constitutional rights to associate, assemble, and express opinions, as guaranteed by Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. In democratic constitutional practice, the expression of opinions in public forums, including during meetings of legislative members and government bodies, constitutes a citizens’ right and serves as an instrument of public oversight over power, and cannot easily be qualified as a criminal act merely because it causes discomfort or disturbance to the activities of state institutions.
Furthermore, the Petitioner continued, the absence of a clear distinction between actual physical violence and legitimate political expression, as well as the lack of objective benchmarks regarding the degree of disturbance that may be subject to criminal sanction, renders Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code susceptible to being used to criminalize expressions of opinion that are in fact protected by the Constitution. Accordingly, these norms not only undermine the principle of a state governed by law that upholds legal certainty, but also threaten the space of civil liberties, which constitutes a central pillar of a democratic state.
Also read: Fearing Criminalization of Protests, BEM PTNU Treasurer Challenges Criminal Code
Pemohon dalam petitumnya memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk menyatakan Pasal 232 dan Pasal 233 UU KUHP khususnya frasa “ Ancaman Kekerasan, Memaksa Lembaga dan/atau badan agar mengambil atau tidak mengambil suatu keputusan, merintangi pimpinan atau anggota lembaga legislatif dan/atau badan pemerintah, serta tidak terganggu” bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 khusunya Pasal 28D Ayat (1) dan Pasal 28E Ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945, sepanjang tidak dimaknai konstitusional.
In the petitums, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code—in particular the phrases “threat of violence,” “forces such institution and/or body to take or not to take a decision,” “obstructs the chairperson or members of a legislative institution and/or a government body,” and “without disturbance”—contrary to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28E paragraph (3), insofar as they are not interpreted as constitutional.
The Petitioner also requests the Court to declare that the phrases in Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code conditionally not legally binding, insofar as they are not interpreted as follows: the phrase “threat of violence” must be understood as threats accompanied by intent and a real capacity to carry out direct and actual physical violence, which can be proven objectively, and shall not include the expression of opinions, criticism, appeals, or political pressure conveyed peacefully; the phrase “forces such institution and/or body to take or not to take a decision” must be understood as acts carried out through physical violence or real and direct threats of physical violence that eliminate freedom of will, and shall not encompass the conveyance of aspirations, demonstrations, criticism, or other forms of public participation guaranteed by the Constitution; the phrase “obstructs the chairperson or members of a legislative institution and/or a government body” must be understood as concrete physical actions that directly impede the performance of official duties, and shall not include activities of expressing opinions in public or protest actions; and the phrase “without disturbance” must be interpreted strictly and narrowly as disturbances in the form of physical violence, and may not be construed as a restriction on criticism, protest, or citizens’ political expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
Explore case No. 22/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Adriana A.Y.
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.
Friday, February 06, 2026 | 13:43 WIB 92