{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1580516,
        "msgid": "constitutional-court-rejects-hastos-challenge-on-obstruction-of-justice-provision-1772431186",
        "date": "2026-03-02 11:54:22",
        "title": "Constitutional Court Rejects Hasto's Challenge on \"Obstruction of Justice\" Provision",
        "author": "Ardito Ramadhan",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a judicial review petition filed by PDI Perjuangan Secretary-General Hasto Kristiyanto challenging Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law regarding obstruction of justice provisions. The court determined the petition was inadmissible because an earlier decision (71\/PUU-XXIII\/2025) had already partially granted a similar petition, declaring the contested phrase \"directly or indirectly\" unconstitutional, leaving the current petition without legal object.",
        "content": "<p>JAKARTA \u2013 The Constitutional Court (MK) declared that it could not\naccept the petition for judicial review of Article 21 of the\nAnti-Corruption Law (UU Tipikor) filed by PDI Perjuangan\nSecretary-General Hasto Kristiyanto.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling, numbered 136\/PUU-XXIII\/2025, was announced in a plenary\nsession presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo and other\nconstitutional judges at the MK building on Monday, 2 March 2026.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe petitioner\u2019s petition is declared inadmissible,\u201d Suhartoyo\nannounced the ruling decision on Monday.<\/p>\n<p>However, regarding the constitutional review of Article 21 of the\nAnti-Corruption Law, a decision had previously been rendered by the\nConstitutional Court in earlier case number 71\/PUU-XXIII\/2025 dated 2\nMarch 2026.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhich was previously announced with a ruling decision that\nessentially granted the petitioner\u2019s petition in part and declared the\nphrase \u2018directly or indirectly\u2019 in the norms of Article 21 of the\nAnti-Corruption Law to be unconstitutional,\u201d stated Guntur.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat decision has binding legal force from the date the ruling was\nannounced, therefore the subject matter of the petition submitted by the\npetitioner no longer exists as the substance of the statutory norm that\nwas being challenged,\u201d Guntur explained.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAccordingly, in the Court\u2019s view, the petitioner\u2019s petition has lost\nits legal object,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<p>Hasto\u2019s attorney, Illian Deta Arta Sari, had previously argued during\nWednesday\u2019s hearing on 13 August 2025 that Article 21 should impose\npenalties of a maximum prison sentence of three years and\/or a fine of\nat least Rp150,000,000 and at most Rp600,000,000.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Hasto requested that the phrase \u201cinvestigation,\nprosecution, and trial proceedings\u201d in Article 21 not have binding force\nexcept where it carries a cumulative meaning. In essence, Hasto sought\nto narrow the definition of obstruction of justice to require\ninterference at all stages of the legal process or pro justitia, rather\nthan at any single stage.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-rejects-hastos-challenge-on-obstruction-of-justice-provision-1772431186",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}