Rendy Arrofi and Chambali Safaludin (Petitioners) presenting the judicial review petition of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Wednesday (5/20/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Rendy Arrofi and Chambali Safaludin (Petitioners I and II) have filed a petition for the material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) with the Constitutional Court. The preliminary hearing for Case No. 166/PUU-XXIV/2026 took place on Wednesday, May 20, 2026 in the plenary courtroom. Before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (chair) and Constitutional Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek P. Adi on the panel, the Petitioners presented the points of their petition. They argued that Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.

Article 232 of the Criminal Code provides: “Any Person who, by Violence or Threat of Violence, disperses a meeting of a legislative institution and/or a government body, or forces such institution and/or body to take or not take a decision, or expels the chairperson or members of such meeting, shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 6 (six) years.”

Article 233 of the Criminal Code provides: “Any Person who, by Violence or Threat of Violence, obstructs the chairperson or members of a legislative institution and/or a government body from attending a meeting of such institution and/or body, or from carrying out their duties freely and without disturbance in a meeting of such institution and/or body, shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 3 (three) years or a fine of up to category III.” The Petitioners believe these provisions to be contrary to Article 1 paragraph (2) and Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

According to the Petitioners, these provisions are “catchall articles” that could potentially be used to silence ordinary citizens. Substantively, they argued that the two provisions fail to establish clear boundaries between “violence or threats of violence” and political expression, criticism against policy, and advocacy activities protected under the Constitution.

In addition, the Petitioners, who are students of Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 (Untag) Surabaya, argued that the formulation of the two provisions is open to multiple interpretations and potentially places students and critical groups among those most vulnerable to criminalization, as advocacy activities may be interpreted as “forcing” or “obstructing.” Accordingly, strengthening the argument through the combined application of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution is highly relevant and strategic in demonstrating that the application of Articles 232 and 233 of the Criminal Code systematically violates citizens’ constitutional rights.

“The Petitioners request that the Court declare Articles 232 and 233 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code unconstitutional and/or no longer effective from the time the petition is granted, on the grounds that these provisions are contrary to Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution,” Rendy stated while reading the petitum during the hearing, which he attended virtually.

Furthermore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare that, during the transition period until the implementation of the judgment, law enforcement officials shall be prohibited from using Articles 232 and 233 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code as the basis for preliminary inquiries, investigations, arrests, detention, prosecution, or criminal judgments against advocacy activities, peaceful demonstrations, public protests, or other forms of political expression that do not involve actual physical violence endangering human life.

In Accordance with Constitutional Court Regulation

In his advice, Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir stated that the Petitioners should refer to Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 as guidance in structuring their petition appropriately. “In submitting a petition, it must comply with PMK 7/2025. Starting from the Petitioners’ profiles and legal standing, to explaining why the provision a quo causes harm to their constitutional rights—these matters must also be clearly explained,” he stated.

Subsequently, Constitutional Justice Liliek P. Adi advised the Petitioners to review previous petitions and decisions submitted to the Court so that their petition could be structured systematically. “Next, explain the constitutional harm experienced as students, including the obstacles faced, both potential and actual. Further elaborate on the constitutional harm suffered,” he suggested.

However, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra observed that the petition contained too many errors and inaccuracies and was dominated by citations of legal provisions and written regulations that the Petitioners had not fully understood. “In that case, at this hearing you may formally withdraw the petition. If later you are able to prepare a better petition, you may file it again,” he stated firmly.

Before the session was adjourned, the Petitioners confirmed that they would withdraw the petition following the constitutional justices’ advice. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra then adjourned the hearing.

Explore Case No. 166/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---