Judicial Review of New Criminal Code Intensifies at Constitutional Court: From Adultery to Insulting the President
The Constitutional Court (MK) held follow-up hearings on Monday (1_May) regarding judicial reviews of the Criminal Code (KUHP), filed by various petitioners. The reviews cover a range of issues, from provisions on adultery to the criminalisation of insulting the President.
A total of six cases involving the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code were presented for expert testimony. Among these is case Number 27/PUU/XXIV/2026, filed by Atrid Dayani and others, challenging Articles 237 (b) and (c) regarding national symbols. The petitioners argue that these provisions are formulated too broadly and are open to multiple interpretations, potentially leading to the criminalisation of the use of national symbols in academic, cultural, and national expression contexts.
Case Number 29/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, and Case Number 26/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Bernita Matondang and others, challenge Article 264 regarding insults to the President and Vice President. The petitioners argue that this article contradicts the 1945 Constitution and is identical to Article 15 of Law Number 1 of 1946, which was previously declared unconstitutional by the Court.
Furthermore, cases Number 280/PUU-XXIII/2025 (filed by Susi Lestari) and Number 282/PUU-XXIII/2026 (filed by Tania Iskandar) challenge Article 411, paragraph (2) of the new Criminal Code regarding adultery, alleging it violates Article 28B of the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners argue the law creates a paradox for interfaith couples who are unable to marry due to existing legal restrictions, yet face criminalisation for sexual relations outside of marriage. They also contend that the article creates an unequal reporting system: while married individuals can only be reported by their spouses, unmarried individuals can be reported by parents or children, making the latter more vulnerable to criminalisation.
Finally, case Number 275/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by student Afifah Nabila Fitri, challenges Articles 218 (1) and (2) regarding insults to the President. The petitioner argues that these articles create legal uncertainty by granting special protection (privilege) to the President and Vice President, which fundamentally contradicts the principle of equality before the law as guaranteed by Article 27 (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Lawyer Priskila Oktaviani is representing the petitioners in these six cases. The Constitutional Court has requested testimony from the lawmakers, including the DPR and the President. The President’s legal counsel, Deputy Minister of Law Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, appeared on 9 March, while the DPR’s expert body, represented by Adjie Jalu and Wildan, provided testimony on 13 April 2026.