Anti-Corruption Commission Understands Constitutional Court's Decision to Modify Anti-Obstruction Provision
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has modified Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law (Tipikor), striking the phrase “directly or indirectly” which had the potential to become an overly broad legal provision. The KPK stated it understands the Court’s reasoning that this terminology could generate varied interpretations and create expansive room for legal interpretation.
“We understand the Court’s consideration that this provision could lead to diverse interpretations and open space for broad interpretation, so the decision to remove the phrase is part of efforts to guarantee the principle of lex certa, or legal certainty in criminal law enforcement,” said KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo in a statement on Monday, 2 March 2026.
Budi stated that the KPK will carry out its duties and authority in accordance with applicable laws that have been properly enacted and finalised. He also assured that the KPK will continue to fulfil its anti-corruption function whilst observing the principle of legality, legal certainty, and protection of the public’s constitutional rights.
“The KPK also emphasises that the Constitutional Court’s decision is an important instrument in the rule of law framework that guides law enforcement officials in interpreting and applying criminal norms appropriately, proportionally, and consistently,” he concluded.
The Constitutional Court cited that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in the article had potential to become an overly elastic provision. This was addressed in a ruling for case number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed by Hermawanto at the Constitutional Court building on Monday, 2 March.
Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law previously stated: “Any person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or fails to accomplish directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, and examination in court proceedings against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases shall be sentenced to imprisonment of a minimum of three years and a maximum of twelve years and/or a fine of a minimum of Rp150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million rupiah) and a maximum of Rp600,000,000 (six hundred million rupiah).”
The Court determined that conduct constituting prevention, obstruction, or failure should be limited to conduct explicitly regulated in Articles 281 and 282 of Law 1/2023, Article 25 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), and relevant court jurisprudence concerning obstruction of investigation offences.
Examples given by the Court include assisting persons to flee, use of physical force, threats, intimidation, or promises of benefit for false testimony, manipulation to avoid investigation, and influencing witnesses not to appear.
The Court stated that the phrase “indirectly” allowed actions such as spreading disinformation, social pressure, and use of intermediaries—matters subject to subjective assessment by law enforcement officials—to be classified as criminal conduct. The Court noted this phrase also risked making the article an overly elastic provision.
“To achieve fair legal certainty, with the intention of preventing the possibility that the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ could be used elastically to ensnare anyone in a position not aligned with law enforcement officials, such as activities conducted by advocates, journalists, writers, and activists working on anti-corruption agendas, the norm of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law needs to be harmonised with the spirit of Article 25 of UNCAC,” the Court stated.
Based on this reasoning, the Constitutional Court ruled to:
Grant the petitioner’s application in part
Declare that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force
Order publication of this ruling in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate
Reject the petitioner’s application in other respects.