Petitioners’ legal counsel, Muhammad Imam Maulana, delivering the petition during the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2025 on Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Eleven university students from various campuses across Indonesia and one legal staffer and legal consultant from HGM Law Office have filed a petition to review Article 5 paragraph (1) letters b and e, Article 6 paragraph (2), Article 16 paragraph (1) letters f and k, Article 23 paragraph (6), Article 24 paragraph (2), Article 79 paragraph (8), Article 113 paragraph (5) letters c and d, Article 120 paragraphs (1) and (2) letter f, and Article 140 paragraphs (7) and (8) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Law Procedures Code to the Constitutional Court. Two of the 12 Petitioners are described as victims of criminalization who were named suspects over the May Day labor rally on 1 May 2025.

“As of the filing of this petition, Petitioner I and Petitioner II remain suspects and the case against them has neither been dropped nor obtained permanent legal force,” said Muhammad Imam Maulana, counsel for the Petitioners, at the preliminary hearing of Case No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Wednesday, February 11, 2026.​

He added that their suspect status places them directly under the state’s coercive powers, exposing them at any time to detention, transfer of case files, and prosecution, so that their personal liberty, sense of security, and legal certainty have been and remain under threat. With the investigation ongoing and the possibility of prosecution still open, the Petitioners will directly and actually be subject to the new Code’s norms in any further investigation, detention, prosecution, evidentiary process, and trial.

Petitioner I is Cho Yong Gi, an active philosophy student at the Faculty of Humanities, University of Indonesia. Petitioner II is Jorgiana Augustine, an active master’s student in law at Gadjah Mada University’s Faculty of Law. Both say they are activists who campaign on civil liberties and the realization of human rights principles through discussions, writings, and media interviews.

During the May Day rally, they were on duty as paramedics. Instead, they say they suffered torture, searches, forcible seizures, harassment, beatings, mob violence, and other abuse on allegations of disobeying an order from a competent official, and were named suspects on May 23, 2025. Their suspect status is based on Article 216 in conjunction to Article 218 of the Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 1946).​

The Petitioners explain that Article 5 of Law No. 8 of 1981 previously regulated how investigators conduct preliminary inquiries, using the phrase “seek information and evidence”. Under Article 5 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 20 of 2025, this is expanded to “seek, collect, and secure information and evidence”. In their view, even under a reasonable reading this provision is open to multiple interpretations and lacks legal certainty, a concern compounded by the fact that the article’s explanation merely says “sufficiently clear”.

Article 5 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 20 of 2025, which authorizes investigators to “take other actions in accordance with law that are responsible”, effectively gives investigators wide discretion to decide the types, forms, and limits of measures they may take against Petitioners I and II.

The Petitioners argue that this does not reflect the principles of legality: lex praevia (no retroactive law), lex certa (clarity), lex stricta (being strict), and lex scripta (written law). They contend that these changes create normative confusion and erode due process of law, contradicting Article 1 of Law No. 1 of 2023, which prohibits the use of analogy in defining criminal offences.

In their petitum, the Petitioners ask the Court to declare Article 16 paragraph (1) letters f and k, Article 24 paragraph (2) letter h, Article 113 paragraph (5), Article 120 paragraphs (1) and (2) letter f, and Article 140 paragraph (8) of the Criminal Law Procedures Code unconstitutional and without binding legal force. For Article 5 paragraph (1) letters b and e, Article 6 paragraph (2), Article 23 paragraph (6), Article 24 paragraph (2) letter h, and Article 79 paragraph (8), they request a ruling that these provisions are unconstitutional and non-binding insofar as they are not interpreted in line with the formulations set out in their petitum.

Beside Petitioners I and II, Petitioner III is Hafizhah Nur Oktawiyana, Petitioner IV Muhammad Shiddiq, Petitioner V Rangga Putra Valeriant, Petitioner VI Dyzta Mutiara Salim, Petitioner VII Muhammad Nouval Ar-rahman, Petitioner VIII Satria Dzaky Suhendar, Petitioner IX Noval Ferdiansyah, Petitioner X Julianus, Petitioner XI Ahmad Zabidi Hikam, and Petitioner XII Mathias Eikel Bremana Sembiring.​

The case was heard by a panel of justices chaired by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, with Justices Anwar Usman and Arsul Sani. In his advice, Justice Arsul highlighted that 13 provisions are being challenged simultaneously against a single constitutional article as the sole benchmark.​

He suggested that some of the challenged provisions might instead conflict with other articles of the Constitution and warned that challenging many provisions at once demands especially clear and robust argumentation.

“Consider this carefully. At the revision stage, you may need to narrow this petition and separate some issues into a different case,” Justice Arsul said.

Before adjourning, Justice Enny informed the Petitioners that they may revise their petition. The Court must receive the revised petition, in both softcopy and hardcopy, no later than Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 12.00 PM Western Indonesia Time.

Case tracking: Petition No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi.

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 prevails.

---