Arya News - In a hearing on Wednesday, the nine-justice panel partially granted a petition challenging three articles of the new Criminal Code (KUHP), namely Articles 218, 219 and 220, which criminalise acts deemed to attack the honour or dignity of the president or vice president.
JAKARTA – The Constitutional Court’s recent ruling that alleged insults against the president or vice president can only be prosecuted upon their complaint has not quieted fears for free speech amid growing intimidation of critics.
In a hearing on Wednesday, the nine-justice panel partially granted a petition challenging three articles of the new Criminal Code (KUHP), namely Articles 218, 219 and 220, which criminalize acts deemed to attack the honor or dignity of the president or vice president.
The petition, filed by 15 law students, sought to overturn the provisions and clarify who was eligible to file a complaint under them, arguing that the legal uncertainty could create a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
The Court acknowledged the ambiguity, ruling that alleged insults against the president or vice president could only be prosecuted based on a complaint filed by the person concerned. It effectively bars family members, supporters, sympathizers and other third parties from filing complaints on their behalf.
“The decision is made so that there’s no room for other parties […] to file a criminal proceeding based on their own judgment,” Justice Guntur said.
The bench, however, rejected the petitioners’ request to overturn the three provisions, ruling that the defamation articles remained constitutional and could serve their intended purpose without undermining freedom of expression.
Under the KUHP, those convicted of publicly defaming the president or vice president can face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to Rp 200 million (US$11,200).
Not enough
More than a dozen judicial review petitions were filed with the Court in the weeks after the new KUHP took effect on Jan. 2, with many petitioners warning that its provisions could threaten civil liberties.
Despite the latest ruling, civil society groups remain skeptical that it will significantly ease threats to freedom of expression, arguing that other laws continue to be used to criminalize critics for allegedly insulting officials or state institutions.
Coordinator of rights group Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) Dimas Bagus Arya said the ruling would not immediately calm public worries over shrinking space for free expression, particularly given the authorities’ track record of failing to implement some court rulings.
“The ruling will not immediately dispel the chilling effect because many factors continue to fuel the climate of repression that has been spreading lately,” Dimas said on Thursday.
He pointed to cases involving the alleged harassment of activists under prevailing laws, particularly defamation provisions in the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law.
Beyond legal provisions, Dimas said the administration had increasingly signaled what he described as an authoritarian shift, with threats to democracy increasingly accompanied by physical intimidation of critics.
Nearly 300 government critics faced intimidation or violence in 2025, while 58 people were reported to police over their social media posts, according to Amnesty International Indonesia.
The rights group has also pointed to political rhetoric as a factor contributing to the hostile environment, saying repeated statements by President Prabowo Subianto portraying activists and academics negatively had contributed to pressure on freedom of expression.
Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) board member Wahyudi Djafar said the ruling had resolved the legal uncertainty over who could file a complaint, but whether the provision is used against critics would ultimately depend on the “political maturity” of the president or vice president.
Coordinating Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Services Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra welcomed the ruling on Thursday, saying it provided greater legal clarity and urged law enforcement authorities to follow the Court’s decision.
“What is important for the public to understand is that criticism, opinions and expression still have a place in this democratic state,” he said.