The Petitioners attending the preliminary hearing for the material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code for Case No. 208/PUU-XXIV/2026, Monday (6/22/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Five university students have filed for material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) to the Constitutional Court. They are Aulia Maharani, Qurrota A’yunin, Maulida Izza Arifin, Muhammad Resta Ramadhan, and Bonafasius Rome Yesaya Situngkir (Petitioners I-V, respectively). The preliminary hearing for Case No. 208/PUU-XXIV/2026 took place in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms on Monday, June 22, 2026, with Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra chairing the panel.

The Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Article 258 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, which provides: “Any person who unlawfully intercepts, records, diverts, alters, obstructs, and/or monitors the transmission of Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents that are not public in nature, whether through wired communication networks or wireless networks, shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of ten (10) years or a fine not exceeding Category VI.”

Maulida Izza Arifin, representing the Petitioners, argued that the provision could potentially criminalize activities involving the acquisition and dissemination of electronic information, thereby inciting fear and creating legal uncertainty in the exercise of the right to information guaranteed under Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. In other words, the provision potentially exposes the Petitioners, as citizens and users of electronic communication facilities, to criminal liability. This is because the provision does not provide any exception where the Petitioners act for the purpose of securing, documenting, or submitting Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents to law enforcement authorities as evidence of a criminal offense for reporting purposes. As a result, the Petitioners may potentially face criminal prosecution when making such reports. The provision a quo provides no exception for the public interest, does not require proof of actual harm, and fails to distinguish between actors acting in bad faith and those acting in the public interest.

“The Petitioners appealed to the Court to declare Article 258 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not construed to mean: ‘Any person who unlawfully intercepts, records, diverts, alters, obstructs, and/or monitors the transmission of Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents that are not public in nature, whether through wired communication networks or wireless networks, shall not be subject to criminal punishment if such person obtains, documents, secures, or submits non-public Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents to law enforcement authorities, provided that such information contains evidence of a criminal offense, is used solely for the purpose of reporting or proving a criminal offense, and may still be assessed by a judge as evidence based on its authenticity, relevance, and connection to the case in criminal proceedings,’” Maulida stated while reading the Petitioners’ petitums (request).

Justices’ Advice

Providing advice, Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir urged the Petitioners to read Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on Procedure for Judicial Review. He believes the petition’s structure had not corresponded to said regulation.

“The petition is verbose. The legal standing section also needs to be clarified and elaborated upon. It should be explained whether the Petitioners are acting in their capacity as students or as active users of electronic communication facilities, and whether there is a direct connection. Focus on satisfying the requirements for constitutional injury and on the argument that the challenged provision potentially restricts constitutional rights,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Liliek P. Adi advised the Petitioners to exercise greater care and precision in drafting their petition. “In particular, be more careful when citing prior Constitutional Court decisions, and if you wish to use examples, choose decisions that are relevant to the petition being submitted,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra observed that the petition still contained disorganized and overlapping arguments and claims of legal standing. “Furthermore, if this provision has never been reviewed before, there is no need to include an explanation regarding ne bis in idem. There are also references to cases that have no relevance to the constitutional review being sought in this petition. Most importantly, the petition has not yet adequately explained why the provision a quo is considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution. There is some explanation, but it is still insufficient,” he remarked.

Before adjourning the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, starting from the end of the session. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office no later than 12:00 WIB on Monday, July 6, 2026. The Court will then schedule the next hearing to examine the revisions to the petition.

Read Decision No. 208/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Fauzan F.
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.