Constitutional Court Amends Obstruction of Investigation Clause, Deeming It "Rubber Paragraph"

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has amended Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law (Tipikor). The Court identified the phrase “directly or indirectly” in the article as potentially constituting a “rubber paragraph” — legislation with dangerously elastic interpretation.

The Court delivered its ruling in case number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, submitted by Hermawanto, at the MK headquarters on Monday, 2 March 2026.

Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law previously stated: “Any person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or thwarts, directly or indirectly, the investigation, prosecution, and court examination of suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 12 years and/or a fine of not less than Rp150,000,000 and not more than Rp600,000,000.”

The Constitutional Court determined that legitimate forms of obstruction should be limited to conduct explicitly defined in Articles 281 and 282 of Law 1/2023, Article 25 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), and relevant court precedent on obstruction of investigation. Examples include helping someone evade arrest, use of physical force, threats, intimidation, promises of benefit for false testimony, fabrication to avoid investigation, and influencing witnesses to abstain.

The Court noted that the phrase “indirectly” enabled broad subjective interpretation by law enforcement, potentially criminalising activities such as spreading information, social pressure, and use of intermediaries. Most significantly, the Court warned that the phrase could be weaponised elastically against anyone deemed misaligned with law enforcement, particularly lawyers, journalists, writers, and activists engaged in anti-corruption work.

To ensure legal certainty and prevent the clause being stretched arbitrarily, the Constitutional Court determined that Article 21 required synchronisation with Article 25 of UNCAC.

The Court’s ruling: (1) Partially granted the petitioner’s request; (2) Declared the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and of no binding force; (3) Ordered publication of the ruling in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia; and (4) Rejected the remainder of the petitioner’s request.