Constitutional Court Rejects Lawsuit by Roy Suryo, Rismon, and Tifa Against Criminal Code and ITE Law Articles
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has decided not to accept a constitutional review petition against several articles in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning amendments to the Information and Electronic Transactions Law (ITE Law).
The petition filed by Roy Suryo, Tifauzia Tyassuma, and Rismon Sianipar was declared inadmissible and unable to proceed.
The ruling was delivered during a judgment hearing for case number 50/PUU-XXIV/2026 held at the Constitutional Court Building in Central Jakarta on Monday (16 March). The hearing was chaired by Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside other constitutional judges.
In the legal considerations delivered, Suhartoyo explained that petitions 2 through 6 lacked adequate explanation in their factual basis regarding the grounds for the petitioners’ request that certain norms be exempted for academics, researchers, or activists, whilst remaining applicable to other subjects covered by the norms without exception.
The Court also assessed that the interpretation requested by the petitioners in those petitions was specifically related only to their own interests. However, if the norm were interpreted as requested, the interpretation would apply generally.
“Additionally, there is no argument regarding the constitutionality problem of the norms being tested that explains the norm is problematic only for academics, researchers, or activists,” said Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo when reading the legal considerations of the petition, as cited from the MK website.
Furthermore, the MK also scrutinised the formulation of petitions 7 through 9, which connected the tested norms with other norms using the term “juncto”. In the petition, it was requested that these norms be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and lack conditional binding force.
“Such petitions are unconventional and their purpose cannot be understood—whether it is intended to test both norms connected by juncto. If so, they should be formulated in separate petitions like petitions 2 through 6, which mention one norm requested to be tested in one petition. Therefore, the formulation of petitions 7 through 9 creates difficulty for the Court to understand the actual intent of what the petitioners are requesting,” said Suhartoyo.
The Court concluded that the petitioners’ petition was unclear or ambiguous. Although the MK stated it had jurisdiction to examine the case, since the petition was deemed not to meet the required clarity, the Court did not proceed with substantive examination.
The constitutional review petition, recorded as case number 50/PUU-XXIV/2026, was filed by Tifauzia Tyassuma, Roy Suryo Notodiprojo, and Rismon Hasiholan. They challenged several articles in the Criminal Code and ITE Law deemed problematic from a constitutional perspective.
Articles tested included Article 310 paragraph (1) and Article 311 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 433 paragraph (1) and Article 434 paragraph (1) in the new Criminal Code. Additionally, the petitioners also challenged Article 27A, Article 28 paragraph (2), Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 35 in the ITE Law.
In a preliminary hearing held on Tuesday (10 February), the petitioners’ legal counsel, Refly Harun, stated that these articles were considered contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.
He opined that several provisions, particularly Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code, are frequently used to silence criticism expressed by the public, especially criticism directed at officials or former state officials.