Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

House Member: Constitutional Court Ruling on Presidential Insult Article Serves as Balancer

| Source: ANTARA_ID Translated from Indonesian | Legal
House Member: Constitutional Court Ruling on Presidential Insult Article Serves as Balancer
Image: ANTARA_ID

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Member of Commission XIII of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) overseeing law, human rights, immigration, and corrections, Rieke Diah Pitaloka, stated that the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling on the Presidential Insult Article, which was partially granted, serves as a balancer between two interests. These are the personal honour of the president/vice president and the people’s freedom to speak, criticise, supervise, and correct those in power.

“The Constitutional Court did not abolish the criminal offence of insulting the president/vice president, but affirmed that such cases can only be prosecuted based on a complaint by the president and/or vice president,” Rieke said in a statement in Jakarta on Friday.

According to her, Ruling Number 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 has provided an important constitutional limit to Article 218, Article 219, and Article 220 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP), and must therefore be viewed as an effort to balance these two interests.

Rieke explained that the President is a public official, not a person immune to criticism. She argued that criticism of policy is not an insult, supervision is not a personal attack, and dissent is not a crime. Therefore, she said, the application of Article 218 and Article 219 of the KUHP must not become a gateway for the criminalisation of differing voices.

She stated that the National Criminal Code has provided room for acts carried out in the public interest or for self-defence. This principle must become the main safeguard in law enforcement. The same principle, she argued, must be applied in the digital space. Law Number 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) regulates defamation or attacks on honour through electronic systems, but these provisions have a validity period linked to the entry into force of the National Criminal Code.

“The National Criminal Code has been in effect since 2 January 2026, so harmonisation between the Criminal Code and the ITE Law regime must be carried out carefully to avoid overlapping and layered criminalisation,” she explained.

Rieke reminded that the digital space must not become a lawless space, but also must not become a space without a constitution. Criticism conveyed through social media remains part of freedom of expression as long as it does not fulfil the elements of a criminal offence. “I emphasise that a state of law must not turn a feeling of offence into a criminal act,” she said.

She continued, “Law enforcement officials must look at the context, intent, target, public interest, form of expression, and whether the criminal elements are fulfilled. A single sentence must not be taken out of context and then used as a legal trap.”

With the issuance of the Constitutional Court ruling, Rieke recommended that the Indonesian National Police and the Attorney General’s Office are obliged to apply Constitutional Court Ruling Number 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 consistently. “No third party may act on behalf of the president/vice president to initiate criminal proceedings for insult,” she said.

Law enforcement officials must clearly distinguish criticism, satire, opinion, supervision, and correction from insult, defamation, threats, or other criminal acts. Assessment of this must be based on context, evidence, criminal elements, proportionality, and public interest.

“We are not choosing between the President’s honour and the people’s freedom. We are ensuring both are in constitutional balance,” she said. She added that the President must be respected as a person and a state official. But the President’s power must remain open to criticism as a public power. Because democracy is not a garden where only praise is allowed to grow, but a space where criticism, correction, and the courage to speak the truth remain alive.

“Do not let the law become a wall that silences the people’s voice. Make the law a bridge that safeguards human dignity while limiting the abuse of power,” Rieke said.

View JSON | Print