Petitioner’s legal counsel, Priskila Oktaviani, delivering the main points of the revised petition during the judicial review hearing of the Criminal Code, Monday (9/2). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court held a further hearing in the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the new Criminal Code on Monday, February 9, 2026. The second hearing in the case filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, Case No. 29/PUU-XXIV/2026, was chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Adies Kadir, and was scheduled to hear the main points of the revised petition.

The Petitioner initially argued that Article 100; Article 218 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 219; Article 237 letters b and c; Article 240 paragraph (1); Article 241 paragraph (1); Article 256; Article 302 paragraph (1); Article 411 paragraph (2); Article 433 paragraph (3); Article 434 paragraph (2); and Article 509 letters a and b of the new Criminal Code are inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution. In the revised petition, however, legal counsel Priskila Oktaviani said the challenged provisions had been changed to Article 102; Article 218, Article 219, and Article 220; Article 237 letter c; Article 240 and Article 241; Article 256; Article 302; Article 433 paragraphs (1) and (3); Article 434 paragraph (2); and Article 509 letters a and b.

The Petitioner also elaborated on his legal standing for each challenged article and refined eight key points in the petition’s arguments (posita). First, Article 102 of the Criminal Code fails to provide fair legal certainty, thereby violating Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Second, provisions on insulting the President are unconstitutional; consequently, Articles 218, 219, and 220 of the Criminal Code do not provide fair legal certainty and protection, and therefore contravene Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Third, Article 237 letter c of the Criminal Code revives a provision that has been clearly declared unconstitutional. It thereby undermines fair legal certainty and protection, and again conflicts with Article 28D, paragraph (1). Fourth, Constitutional Court Decisions No. 6/PUU-V/2007 and 105/PUU-XXII/2024 are cited as constitutional indicators showing that Articles 240 and 241 of the Criminal Code fail to provide fair legal certainty and protection, and thus violate Article 28D paragraph (1).

Fifth, Article 256 of the Criminal Code undermines legal certainty and fails to afford fair legal protection, thereby contravening Article 28D paragraph (1). Sixth, Article 302 creates legal uncertainty by failing to clarify which authority is competent to determine recognized religions and beliefs in Indonesia, and therefore also violates Article 28D paragraph (1).

“Seventh, Articles 433 and 434 of the Criminal Code do not provide fair legal protection, so they are inconsistent with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Eighth, Article 509 letters a and b of the Criminal Code fail to provide fair legal protection, and therefore conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In short, all articles being challenged are incompatible with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Priskila said from the panel courtroom.​​

Also read:

Inconsistency of Several Norms in Criminal Code Challenged

During the preliminary hearing on Monday, January 26, 2026, the Petitioner, represented by legal counsel Priskila Oktaviani, argued that Article 100 of the Criminal Code, as a unified norm, fails to meet the requirements of clarity and precision mandated by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The a quo provision uses phrases that are not normatively defined, namely “sense of remorse”, “hope for self-improvement”, and “commendable conduct and behaviour”, without providing conceptual boundaries, objective indicators, or measurable assessment mechanisms.

The lack of clarity, she said, renders the resulting restriction of rights incalculable and unpredictable. In the context of limiting a right that touches on the right to life, this vagueness constitutes a serious constitutional defect because it opens the door to arbitrary and discriminatory interpretation. She added that, even in technical regulations that should comprehensively govern the evaluation mechanism for the behaviour of death-row inmates during the probation period, the Criminal Code provides only a general framework, without operational guidance on behavioural indicators, assessment criteria, or the authority responsible for carrying out the evaluation. This uncertainty risks inconsistent implementation and creates room for subjectivity that could harm either the convict or the public.

Consequently, Article 100 of the Criminal Code as a whole does not satisfy the requirement of being “prescribed by law in clear terms” as required by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, and thus the rights-restricting effect of the a quo norm lacks constitutional legitimacy.

Case tracking: Petition No. 29/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Andhini S.F.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---