Constitutional Court Rules Roy Suryo's Defamation Article Lawsuit Lacks Clarity

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the judicial review petition submitted by Roy Suryo Notodiprojo, Tifauzia Tyassuma, and Rismon Hasiholan Sianipar. The lawsuit challenging defamation provisions in the Criminal Code and the Information and Electronic Transactions Law was deemed unclear or obscure (obscuur libel).

During the ruling announcement session No. 50/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday 16 March, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained that there was an inconsistency between the statement of facts (posita) and the relief sought (petitum).

Suhartoyo stated that one of the primary reasons the Court rejected the petition was this inconsistency between the grounds (posita) and the relief requested (petitum) by the petitioners.

“Relief items 2 through 6 contain no exposition in the grounds section stating the reasons why the Petitioners request that the norms be applied only to academics, researchers, or activists,” Suhartoyo said whilst delivering the Court’s legal reasoning.

According to the Constitutional Court, the petitioners requested that several defamation provisions not apply to academics, researchers, or activists who voice criticism based on research. However, the Court determined that this request was not accompanied by adequate constitutional arguments in the grounds section.

Suhartoyo emphasised that if the Constitutional Court accepts an interpretation of a statutory provision, that interpretation applies generally (erga omnes), not merely for specific interests.

“The interpretation requested in relief items 2 through 6 is specifically sought only for the interests of the Petitioners, yet its meaning will apply generally,” he stated.

Additionally, the Court flagged the formulation of the petition’s relief (petitum) as unusual and difficult to understand.

In relief items 7 through 9, the petitioners requested that certain statutory provisions be declared inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution by linking them to other norms using the term ‘juncto’.

According to Suhartoyo, formulating a petition in this manner created confusion for the Court.

“Such relief is unusual and its intent and purpose cannot be understood—whether it aims to test both norms that are junctoed or not,” he explained.

Rather, he continued, if one intends to test different provisions, each provision should be formulated in a separate relief item to make clear the object submitted for testing.

Due to this lack of clarity, the Constitutional Court found the petitioners’ petition to be unclear and obscure, making it unable to assess the constitutionality of the provisions in question.

“The Court has no doubt in stating that the petition herein is unclear or obscure. Therefore, the Court will not further consider the Petitioners’ petition,” Suhartoyo said definitively.

In their petition, Roy Suryo and his associates challenged several provisions in the Criminal Code and the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, including Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code, Articles 433 and 434 of the New Criminal Code, as well as Articles 27A, 28(2), 32, and 35 of the Information and Electronic Transactions Law.

Through their legal representative, Refly Harun, the petitioners argued that these provisions are frequently used to suppress criticism directed at public officials, and therefore violate the guarantee of freedom of expression in the 1945 Constitution.

The petitioners even requested that the Constitutional Court interpret the provisions so that criticism or research-based opinions directed at state officials, whether currently in office or retired, cannot be prosecuted provided they are made in good faith.

However, because the petition was deemed unclear in terms of legal construction and formulation of relief, the Court ultimately declined to address the merits and ruled that the petition is inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard).