Legal counsel Priskila Oktaviani delivering the revised petition in the Panel Courtroom, Monday (9/2). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court held a further hearing on the petition filed by Rianjani Pajar Salusih, Muhammad Amyusril Baramirdin, Devina Futriyani, and Bernita Matondang, challenging the constitutionality of Article 264 of Law No. 1 of 2026 on Penal Adjustment on Monday, February 9, 2026. The second hearing in Case No. 26/PUU-XXIV/2026, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Adies Kadir, was scheduled to hear the main points of the revised petition.

Priskila Oktaviani, counsel for the Petitioners, said they had expanded the object of review from only Article 264 to now include Articles 263 and 264 of the law in question. The Petitioners also submitted additional evidence and added new constitutional benchmarks, namely Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28E paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. They further detailed the alleged constitutional harms suffered by each of the four Petitioners.

“Next are improvements to the arguments (posita), which concern: unclear fault elements; multiple interpretations and the rubber-article character of the provisions; inconsistency in the structure of the offence; lack of clarity in the causality element ‘resulting in public unrest’; failure to meet the proportionality test; and the actual and potential impact on the Petitioners,” Priskila explained as she read out the refined points in the petition.

Also read:

Phrases on Dissemination of Hoaxes in Penal Adjustment Law Challenged for Ambiguity

During the Preliminary Hearing on Monday, January 26, 2026, a representative of the Petitioners stated that provision a quo is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 28F, and Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution. They argued that According to the Petitioners, the provision contains several phrases such as “uncertain news,” “exaggerated,” and “incomplete,” as well as the mens rea element formulated as “while knowing,” which they believe are vague, open to multiple interpretations, and lack clear objective parameters.

The Petitioners further stated that they are law students who, in the course of their academic activities, actively engage in the search for, processing, analysis, and dissemination of legal information through academic forums and digital platforms. In that capacity, the Petitioners require a safe space free from the threat of criminalization in order to access, process, and convey information, as guaranteed under Article 28E paragraph (3), Article 28F, and Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution.

In academic practice, the Petitioners observed that the use of data that has not yet been updated or documents in older versions is commonplace and unavoidable, given the rapidly changing dynamics of information. In such circumstances, information that is accurate at a given time may later appear different following updates issued by official institutions, thereby potentially being misconstrued by law enforcement authorities as “uncertain,” “incomplete,” or “exaggerated” information.

This could place the Petitioners in a vulnerable position. Because the provision a quo employs vague elements without objective parameters, it opens the possibility of criminalization of legitimate academic activities. Accordingly, the application of the norm a quo gives rise to direct and potential constitutional harm to the Petitioners as students who depend on academic freedom and the right to information.

xplore case No. 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Andhini S. F.
Translators   : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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.

---