A House representative testifying at the fourth judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code for Case No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (4/13/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Articles 240 and 241 of the Criminal Code on insult against the Government and state institutions serve to distinguish between constructive criticism and insult. In Indonesian criminal law, this offense places criminal punishment as a last resort in enforcement of the law.

This statement was made by House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member Rudianto Lallo on behalf of the House at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) against the 1945 Constitution on Monday, April 13, 2026. This fourth hearing for Case No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 had been scheduled to hear the House of Representatives (DPR) responding to the petition filed by Tania Iskandar, Sila Fide Novira Nggebu, Muhammad Restu, Yuni Wulan Ningsih, Ika Minawati, Putra Muhamad Fadilla, Tasya Ayu Hapsari, Mawar Prasiska Nur Rizki, and Riesa Zhafirah (Petitioners I-IX).

“In view of its criminal element, it is a litigated crime, meaning that new actions can [only] be legally processed with a direct complaint by the victim, in this context the Government or a state institution,” Lallo said.

Deterrent Effect

The House emphasized that the legislature had formulated those articles with the intention of providing a deterrent effect against criminal offenses in the future, rather for punitive purposes. The formulation of these provisions constitutes offenses in which the principal penalties are prescribed in the alternative, such that in imposing sentences, judges are expected to prioritize lighter principal punishments.

In addition, the formulation of these provisions has been aligned with Constitutional Court Decision No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006. This amendment changed the nature of the offense from a public offense to a complaint-based offense, thereby limiting the subject of defamation and preventing the emergence of overly broad or vague provisions, while at the same time safeguarding freedom of expression.

Furthermore, Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-XI/2013 affirmed that the legislature may regulate matters that have previously been invalidated, provided that it seeks to address the aspects that led to the annulment. What is prohibited, however, is the re-enactment of identical norms without any constitutional improvement.

Also read:

At Risk of Criminalization for Criticizing Govt, Students Challenge Criminal Code

Petitioners Expand Object of Review on Criminalization of Critics Against Govt

Govt Distinguishes Criticism Against Public Policy vs. Insult

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, Priskila Octaviani, counsel for the Petitioners, argued that the enforcement of Article 240 of the Criminal Code directly places the Petitioners in a position vulnerable to restrictions and criminalization in the exercise of their constitutional rights. This is because the phrase “insulting the government or a state institution” in the provision a quo does not provide a clear definition or objective parameters, thereby opening broad and subjective interpretive space—particularly in distinguishing between criticism, academic assessment, and political expression, on the one hand, and conduct categorized as “insult,” on the other.

Although the Elucidation to Article 240 of the Criminal Code defines “insult” as “conduct that demeans or damages the honor or image of the government or a state institution, including defamation or slander,” the Petitioners argued that such elucidation does not automatically satisfy constitutional standards for limiting freedom of expression. The phrase “insult” remains a normative and subjective assessment that does not refer to factual conduct capable of objective verification.

The Petitioners contend that the Elucidation to Article 240 fails to provide firm and measurable parameters to distinguish criticism, academic assessment, political expression, satire, and conduct that may be criminally sanctioned as “insult.” As a result, citizens, including the Petitioners, cannot reasonably predict when a lawful expression may transform into a criminal offense.

The Petitioners further argue that the enforcement of Article 241 of the Criminal Code significantly expands the scope for criminalization, as it targets any person who broadcasts, displays, affixes writings or images, plays recordings, or disseminates through information technology media any expression deemed to contain an insult against the government or a state institution, with the intent that it be publicly known.

In substance, this norm directly targets the Petitioners’ activities as law students who actively use social media, online discussion platforms, and information technology media to disseminate ideas, analyses, and critiques of public policy. The Petitioners are threatened not only when creating an expression, but also when disseminating or sharing the expressions of others, including activities commonly associated with academic and social engagement. If such conduct is deemed an insult based on subjective interpretation, the provision creates a real and disproportionate threat to the Petitioners’ freedom of expression.

Explore case No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
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.

---