The Petitioners’ legal counsel withdrawing the petition for the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Wednesday (4/15/2026) at the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) once again convened a hearing to examine Petition No. 106/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP). The hearing, held on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at the Court’s courtroom in Jakarta, was presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani.

The petition was filed by several Indonesian citizens, including ST Luthfiani, Syamsul Jahidin, Henoch Thomas, Popy Desiyantie, Fredy Limantara, Uswatun Hasanah, Steven Izaac Risakotta, Elyas Marulitua, and Irfan Wahyudi.

Originally scheduled to examine the revision of the petition, the hearing instead took a different course. Ester, acting as legal counsel for the Petitioners, formally declared the withdrawal of Petition No. 106/PUU-XXIV/2026.

“The a quo petition still requires further refinement and will be resubmitted in a more complete form at a later stage,” she stated before the panel.

Also read:

Petitioner: Insulting the President Provisions Threaten Freedom of Expression

Previously, during the preliminary hearing on Thursday, April 2, 2026, the Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Articles 218, 219, and 220 of the Criminal Code, which regulate offenses against the dignity of the President and/or Vice President. They contended that these provisions are susceptible to broad interpretation, thereby creating legal uncertainty, particularly in distinguishing between legitimate criticism and punishable insult. Such ambiguity, they argued, runs counter to the guarantee of fair legal certainty as enshrined in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners also referred to Constitutional Court Decision No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006, which had previously annulled similar provisions on presidential insult. In their view, the substance of the new Criminal Code provisions does not materially differ from those that had already been declared unconstitutional.

Furthermore, they maintained that the contested articles could potentially be weaponized to criminalize public criticism of the President and/or Vice President, thereby impeding democratic practices. The norms, they argued, fail to provide a clear and proportionate boundary between criticism as an exercise of freedom of expression and personal insult.

Accordingly, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Articles 218, 219, and 220 of the Criminal Code contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore not legally binding.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Andhini SF
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---