Constitutional Court Tightens Definitions of Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Cases
The Constitutional Court (MK) has removed the phrase “directly or indirectly” from Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law (Tipikor) because it risked functioning as a rubber-stamp clause. The MK has now tightened the boundaries of actions that constitute obstruction of corruption investigations.
This decision was announced during a hearing on case number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, filed by Hermawanto at the Constitutional Court building on Monday, 2 March 2026.
The original Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law stated: “Any person who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, and examination in court proceedings against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 12 years and/or a fine of not less than Rp 150,000,000 and not more than Rp 600,000,000.”
The Constitutional Court noted that Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law did not provide detailed definitions of the specific actions that could be categorised as preventing, obstructing, or thwarting corruption investigations. The MK acknowledged that the legislature deliberately employed open-ended language to ensure adaptability and anticipation of evolving forms of corruption.
According to the MK, the scope of prohibited conduct under Article 21 doctrinally encompasses, but is not limited to, various forms of obstruction of justice explicitly defined in Articles 281 and 282 of Law 1/2023 and Article 25 of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), including:
Obstructing
Intimidating
Influencing
Concealing persons who have committed crimes or persons prosecuted or sentenced
Assisting offenders to flee
Use of physical force or pressure
Threats
Intimidation
Promises of unwarranted benefits to encourage false testimony or influence witness statements or submission of evidence
The court further noted that jurisprudence recognises obstruction of justice to include fabricating evidence to evade investigation and influencing witnesses to ignore investigative summonses.
The MK found that the phrase “or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law could permit conduct that, whilst not explicitly obstructive, substantively hampers the judicial process. Examples cited by the MK included spreading disinformation, social pressure, or use of intermediaries, assessments of which would be made subjectively by law enforcement.
The court concluded that the phrase “indirectly” risked becoming an elastic provision. The MK illustrated this risk by noting that an advocate’s non-litigation advocacy work—such as media publications, discussion forums, and seminars—could potentially be deemed by law enforcement as indirect obstruction of justice. Similarly, journalistic investigations into ongoing cases or academic opinion pieces published in print or electronic media conducted within legal bounds could be misconstrued as indirect obstruction of justice.
The court determined that the phrase “indirectly” had blurred the boundary between lawful, justified conduct and criminally prohibited conduct, thereby risking excessive criminalisation. This created legal uncertainty because the public could no longer predict whether lawful conduct might be loosely categorised as criminal. The court ruled that the phrase “indirectly” must be removed.
The MK stated: “To ensure fair legal certainty and prevent the possibility of the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ being used elastically to ensnare anyone in disagreement with law enforcement—such as advocates, journalists, writers, and activists engaged in anti-corruption work—Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law must be harmonised with the spirit of Article 25 of UNCAC.”
The Constitutional Court therefore ruled to:
Partially grant the applicant’s petition
Declare that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force
Order that this decision be published in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia
Reject the applicant’s petition in all other respects