KPK respects Constitutional Court ruling amending obstruction of justice provisions
Jakarta — The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has stated its respect for the Constitutional Court (MK) which in its ruling modified the wording of an article concerning obstruction of justice (OOJ).
The article in question is Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Offences as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 (Anti-Corruption Law).
“The KPK naturally respects the Constitutional Court’s decision as the highest judicial institution with constitutional authority to review legislation against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” said KPK Spokesman Budi Prasetyo to journalists in Jakarta on Monday.
Furthermore, Budi stated that the KPK understands the Constitutional Court’s reasoning that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law has the potential to create varied interpretations and opens wide space for divergent legal interpretations.
For this reason, he considered the Constitutional Court’s decision to remove the phrase as part of efforts to guarantee the principle of lex certa or legal certainty in criminal law enforcement.
Meanwhile, he stated that the KPK reaffirmed its commitment to carry out its duties and authorities in accordance with legally and finally applicable legislation.
The KPK, Budi said, views the Constitutional Court’s decision as an important instrument in the legal order that guides law enforcement officials to interpret and apply criminal norms correctly, proportionally, and consistently.
“With this, the KPK will continue to carry out its corruption eradication function whilst respecting the principles of legality, legal certainty, and protection of the constitutional rights of society,” he assured that the KPK will continue to implement the latest Constitutional Court ruling.
Previously, the Constitutional Court amended Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law through Decision Number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025.
In that decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law conflicts with the constitution and has no binding legal force.
In its legal reasoning, the Constitutional Court found that the phrase had the potential to create excessive criminalisation, thus risking legal uncertainty and arbitrariness.
The Constitutional Court then concluded that the phrase could potentially be used to ensnare anyone deemed by law enforcement to be obstructing the legal process, or was described as overly broad.
Additionally, the Constitutional Court referred to Article 25 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which does not include the phrase “directly or indirectly”. Furthermore, the new Criminal Code also does not include the phrase.
Therefore, according to the Constitutional Court, so long as any person deliberately prevents, obstructs, or sabotages the legal process, whether at the investigation, prosecution, or court examination stage against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, they may be prosecuted under Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law.
Before the ruling, Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law read: “Any person who deliberately prevents, obstructs, or sabotages directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, and court examination against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be punished with imprisonment of at least 3 years and at most 12 years and/or a fine of at least Rp150,000,000 and at most Rp600,000,000.”
After the ruling, Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law reads: “Any person who deliberately prevents, obstructs, or sabotages the investigation, prosecution, and court examination against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, shall be punished with imprisonment of at least 3 years and at most 12 years and/or a fine of at least Rp150,000,000 and at most Rp600,000,000.”