Constitutional Court Decision Improves Obstruction of Justice Concept
Jakarta — Constitutional law expert Feri Amsari from Andalas University has stated that the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision regarding judicial review of the Anti-Corruption Law improves the concept of obstruction of justice.
Feri, speaking in Jakarta on Monday, assessed that the decision does not represent a weakening but rather clarifies the boundary between actions that genuinely obstruct legal proceedings and activities that remain within constitutional rights.
“I believe the decision actually improves the concept of Article 21 obstruction of justice. So even though the perpetrator obstructs, they can still be punished if they impede investigation, prosecution and court proceedings,” he stated.
According to Feri, the essence of obstruction of justice is the existence of concrete actions that disrupt legal processes tangibly. Without this, he argued, a person should not be convicted merely for being indirectly influential.
“When the process fails or is not carried out, then they become subject to obstruction charges,” he said.
Aligned with the court’s legal reasoning, Feri criticised the phrase “directly or indirectly” in the obstruction of justice provision as opening excessively broad interpretation and risking misuse.
“They cannot directly or indirectly—for instance, merely reporting and then being convicted—this concept is incorrect,” he stated.
He exemplified that advocates, in performing their duties, have the right to pursue non-litigation methods to defend clients, including building public perspective on a case. Such steps constitute legitimate defence strategy.
“In any case, advocates can still pursue non-litigation efforts to advocate for their clients by building perspective on the case. That is reasonably fair for all parties. So authorities must not misinterpret Article 21,” he said.
In decision number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025 issued on Monday, the Constitutional Court struck the phrase “directly or indirectly” from Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on Anti-Corruption.
The court stated the phrase contradicts the 1945 Constitution and lacks binding legal force as it conflicts with the principle of fair legal certainty in law enforcement.
According to the court, the phrase “directly or indirectly” could be applied elastically, potentially ensnaring anyone deemed to obstruct legal proceedings by law enforcement authorities.
In the legal reasoning section, the court specifically exemplified that advocates’ publication activities through media or conducting public discussions and seminars to defend clients could potentially be categorised as indirect obstruction of justice.
The court noted similar potential could occur with journalistic activities conducting investigations into ongoing cases to provide information to the public.