Petitioners’ expert, Fernando Manullang, delivering his testimony during the resumed hearing on the material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code on Monday (18/5). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Giving criminal offense against all actions deemed as defamation to the President and Vice President will tempt those who become President or Vice President to extend their desire to abuse their constitutional power. Such a statement was delivered by Fernando Manullang, a law expert, during the continued hearing of the material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code on Monday, May 18, 2026.

The sixth hearing of Petition No. 29/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak was scheduled to hear expert testimony on the constitutionality of Article 100 paragraph (1) and paragraph (4), Article 218 paragraph (1), Article 219, Article 240 paragraph (1), and Article 241 paragraph (1), Article 237 letter b and letter c, Article 256, Article 302 paragraph (1), Article 411 paragraph (2), Article 433 paragraph (3), Article 434 paragraph (2), and Article 509 letter a and letter b of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, Fernando stated that a legal argument must be supported by a legal interpretation that appears capable of comprehensively explaining a situation. On the other hand, something that does not exist in reality is considered to exist on the basis of a particular argument and interpretation. He said that this is apparent when the Petitioners have provided a requirement for a written complaint in Article 220 of the Criminal Code, which is “fabricated” for a certain situation of defamation against the President and Vice President. This requirement can be used as a basis for a reification procedure.

“The President and Vice President will argue in writing on an unwanted situation they face, by using defamation against the President and Vice President. Even though the situation in reality does not result from a defamation accusation. It may come from the people's dissatisfaction, for example, caused by environmental damage or the state’s economic decline,” Fernando stated.

The Court held the hearing to examine several petitions simultaneously, comprising Petition No. 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Rianjani Pajar Salusih, Muhammad Amyusril Baramirdin, Devina Futriyani, and Bernita Matondang; Petition No. 282/PUU-XXIII/2025 submitted by Tania Iskandar (Petitioner I), Sila Fide Novira Nggebu (Petitioner II), Muhammad Restu (Petitioner III), Yuni Wulan Ningsih (Petitioner IV), Ika Minawati (Petitioner V), Putra Muhamad Fadilla (Petitioner VI), Tasya Ayu Hapsari (Petitioner VII), Mawar Prasiska Nur Rizki (Petitioner VIII), dan Riesa Zhafirah (Petitioner IX).

Also read:

Inconsistency of Several Norms in Criminal Code Challenged

Arguments on Inconsistency of Several Provisions in Criminal Code Refined

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.

---