Constitutional Court rejects substantive review filed by Hasto Kristiyanto on investigation obstruction clause
Jakarta – Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) stated it cannot accept a substantive review petition on the obstruction of justice clause in the Anti-Corruption Law, as filed by Hasto Kristiyanto, Secretary of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan).
“The petitioner’s petition cannot be accepted,” declared Constitutional Court Chief Suhartoyo, reading out the court’s decision in case number 136/PUU-XXIII/2025 during a plenary session at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday.
Hasto’s petition could not be accepted because it had lost its object. Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption (Anti-Corruption Law) that Hasto sought to challenge had already been amended by the Constitutional Court in its decision number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025.
Through a ruling announced by the court immediately before Hasto’s decision, the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law was declared no longer applicable.
The Constitutional Court stated that this phrase contravened the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and possessed no binding legal force, as it did not align with the principle of fair legal certainty in law enforcement.
According to the court, the phrase “directly or indirectly” had the potential to be applied elastically, thereby ensnaring anyone deemed to be obstructing judicial proceedings by law enforcement officials.
The article previously read: “Any person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or fails to forward, directly or indirectly, investigations, prosecution, and court proceedings against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of at least three years and at most twelve years and/or a fine of at least IDR 150,000,000 and at most IDR 600,000,000.”
“Therefore, according to the Constitutional Court, the petitioner’s petition has lost its object,” stated Guntur, reading the court’s legal considerations.
In his petition, Hasto had argued that Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law was interpreted disproportionately and created legal uncertainty, thereby contravening the principle of a fair constitutional state as mandated by the constitution.
He sought clarification of the article’s norms. In his petition, Hasto requested that the Constitutional Court add the phrases “in violation of law” and “through the use of physical force, threats, intimidation, intervention, and/or promises of inappropriate benefits” to the article in question.
Additionally, he argued that the criminal sanctions in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law were disproportionate. He therefore requested that the penalty for obstruction of investigation be reduced to a maximum of three years.
Hasto also requested that the word “and” in the phrase “investigations, prosecution, and court proceedings” be interpreted as having a cumulative meaning.
In other words, he sought for an individual to be punished only if they committed acts of preventing, obstructing, or failing to forward at all stages of investigation, prosecution, and court proceedings.