Constitutional Court Rejects Challenge to New Penal Code Articles on Enrichment and Benefiting Others
Jakarta — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared it unable to accept a request for material review of Law Number 20 of 2001 on amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes and Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Penal Code.
Decision Number 283/PUU-XXIII/2025 was delivered in a plenary session chaired by Constitutional Court Chairman Suhartoyo along with other constitutional judges on Monday, 2 March 2026.
“We declare that the petitioner’s request cannot be accepted,” said Chairman Suhartoyo in announcing the court’s decision on Monday.
Deputy Chairman Saldi Isra, in his legal considerations, noted that the petitioner’s petition formulation was unclear and not in standard form.
“The correct formulation of petition point 4 should state that the words ‘enriching’ and ‘other person’ or ‘enriching’ and the phrase ‘corporation’ in Article 2(1) of the Anti-Corruption Law and Article 603 of Law 1/2023 contravene the 1945 Indonesian Constitution and do not have binding legal standing conditionally unless interpreted as…” he said.
Saldi continued that the correct formulation of petition point 5 should state that the words ‘benefiting’ and the phrase ‘other person’ or ‘benefiting’ and the word ‘corporation’ in Article 3 of the Law and Article 604 of the Penal Code contradict the 1945 Indonesian Constitution.
Previously reported, a former bank employee, Ershad Bangkit Yuslivar, filed a request for material review of Law Number 20 of 2001 on amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes and Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Penal Code.
In Request Number 283/PUU-XXIII/2025, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the phrases “enriching other persons or a corporation” and “benefiting other persons or a corporation” in the Anti-Corruption Law and related provisions in the new Penal Code.
In banking cases, elements of enrichment or benefit have been deemed fulfilled since credit disbursement, without waiting for the occurrence of state financial losses.
According to the petitioner, this situation created fear and legal uncertainty for banking employees, as every credit policy decision potentially leads to criminal proceedings even if undertaken with good faith and without personal gain.
In his petition, the petitioner requested the court add the phrase “shall not be prosecuted for benefiting other persons or a corporation with good faith in carrying out obligations”.
Ershad challenged Articles 603 and 604 of the Penal Code. Article 603 of the Penal Code stipulates that anyone who unlawfully commits acts enriching themselves, other persons, or a corporation, thereby harming state finances or the state economy, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or a prison sentence of at least two years and at most 20 years, as well as a fine of at least category II and at most category VI.
Meanwhile, Article 604 of the Penal Code stipulates that anyone who, with the intention of benefiting themselves, other persons, or a corporation, abuses authority, opportunity, or means available to them by virtue of their position or office, thereby harming state finances or the state economy, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or a prison sentence of at least two years and at most 20 years, as well as a fine of at least category II and at most category VI.