Constitutional Court Rejects Hasto Kristiyanto's Challenge to Anti-Corruption Investigation Obstruction Provision

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a legal challenge by PDIP Secretary-General Hasto Kristiyanto regarding the investigation obstruction provision, or Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law. The Court stated that Hasto’s challenge was inadmissible because the substance of the article’s language had already been addressed in a previous constitutional ruling.

The Constitutional Court first announced Decision Number 71/PUU/XXIII/2025, wherein another petitioner had challenged the same article. In that earlier decision, the Court had partially granted the petitioner’s request, rendering Hasto’s challenge moot.

Constitutional Court Judge M Guntur Hamzah explained during Monday’s 2 March 2026 hearing: “Although the grounds and reasoning for this petition differ from petition number 71/PUU/XXIII/2025, the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law has been declared unconstitutional by Constitutional Court Decision Number 71/PUU/XXIII/2025, which has binding force since its pronouncement. Therefore, the subject matter presented by the petitioner is no longer aligned with the substance of the statutory provision subject to judicial review.”

“Consequently, the petition has lost its object,” Hamzah added.

Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo therefore rejected Hasto’s challenge, stating: “The Court rules that the petitioner’s petition is inadmissible.”

Vagueness Concerns in Investigation Obstruction Provision

Previously, the Constitutional Court had modified Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law in decision number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, declaring the phrase “directly or indirectly” to be unconstitutionally vague, potentially rendering it an elastic or “rubber” provision that could be applied arbitrarily.

Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law prescribes: “Any person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or impedes, directly or indirectly, investigation, prosecution, or court examination of suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 3 (three) years and not more than 12 (twelve) years and/or a fine of not less than Rp 150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million rupiah) and not more than Rp 600,000,000 (six hundred million rupiah).”

The Constitutional Court stated that conduct constituting prevention, obstruction, or impediment should be explicitly regulated under Articles 281 and 282 of Law 1/2023, Article 25 of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), and relevant judicial precedent regarding investigation obstruction offences. Examples include helping someone flee, use of physical force, threats, intimidation or promises of advantage in exchange for false testimony, evidence falsification to avoid investigation, and witness intimidation.

The Court expressed concern that the phrase “indirectly” allows conduct such as disinformation campaigns, social pressure, and use of intermediaries—subjectively evaluated by law enforcement—to be criminalised. The Court warned that this phrase could make the provision function as a “rubber clause” subject to elastic interpretation.

The Constitutional Court stated: “To achieve fair legal certainty and prevent the possibility that the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ could be applied elastically or arbitrarily, potentially ensnaring anyone taking positions contrary to law enforcement—such as activities conducted by advocates, journalists, writers, and activists in anti-corruption agendas—Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law must be harmonised with the spirit of Article 25 of UNCAC.”

Hasto’s Challenge

In his challenge, Hasto requested the Constitutional Court to reduce the maximum penalty under the article from 12 years imprisonment to 3 years. According to the Constitutional Court’s website, Hasto’s challenge was registered as case number 136/PUU-XXIII/2025.

Hasto claimed constitutional injury, having been designated as a suspect and charged with investigation obstruction under Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law. Subsequently, judges acquitted him, ruling that he had not obstructed the Corruption Eradication Commission’s investigation into bribery related to the filling of a vacant DPR seat for Harun Masiku.

Hasto also contended that Article 21 lacks clear boundaries defining investigation obstruction conduct. He argued the provision could classify even legitimate pre-trial legal motions as obstruction or impediment of investigation.

“Given the ‘rubber’ nature of Article 21’s language, lawful conduct would not escape its reach because the provision does not require a ‘unlawful’ element or provide ‘clear and explicit boundaries’ defining conduct that constitutes ‘prevention, obstruction, or impediment,’” Hasto stated.

He further noted that conduct regulated under Article 21 does not constitute corruption itself. He considered the penalties disproportionate, comparing the maximum 12-year sentence with the maximum 5-year penalty for bribery givers under Article 5, and the maximum 3-year penalty for offering gifts or promises to state officials under Article 13.

“Therefore, appropriate penalties for violation of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law should equal the lowest penalty threat in the Anti-Corruption Law—Article 13—with a maximum sentence of 3 years,” Hasto concluded.