Constitutional Court Narrows Obstruction of Justice Clause, Police Responds

Jakarta – The Bhayangkara Corps says it respects the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision to amend the wording of the clause relating to obstruction of justice. This was disclosed by the Police’s Public Relations Division head, Inspector General of Police Johnny Eddizon Isir.

‘Polri respects every final and binding decision of MK, including the decision in Case No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025 on a Constitutional Review of Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, which held that the phrase “directly or indirectly” does not have binding legal force.’

In implementation, Polri, through the Corruption Crime Task Force (Kortastipidkor), will refer to and base its actions on the MK ruling, particularly in applying Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption.

Previously, MK altered the wording of the obstruction of justice clause so as not to be easily misinterpreted.

Through decision No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, MK stated that the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ in the provision of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law is contrary to the constitution and does not have binding legal force.

In the court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Judge Arsul Sani said the phrase “or indirectly” in the provision on obstruction of justice allows forms of conduct that may not be explicit, but are deemed to hinder the administration of justice.

Such conduct, he added, includes the dissemination of disinformation, social pressure, or the use of intermediaries whose assessment is made subjectively by law enforcement officers.

If linked to the applicant’s profession, the activities of lawyers publishing through media or holding public discussions and seminars to defend their clients could potentially be categorised as indirect obstruction of justice.

The same potential, according to MK, can also arise from journalistic activities that investigate an ongoing case with the aim of informing the public.

MK assessed that the existence of the phrase “or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law has blurred the boundary between lawful acts within the space of freedom of expression and acts that are unlawful.