Polri Respects Constitutional Court Ruling on Change to Obstruction of Justice Article Wording

Jakarta – The Indonesian National Police (Polri) said it respects the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that changed the wording of the article on obstruction of justice. ‘Polri respects every Constitutional Court decision that is final and binding, including the Court’s decision in case No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Material Test of Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, which decided that the phrase ’directly or indirectly’ has no binding legal force,’ said the Head of the Public Relations Division, Inspector General Johnny Eddizon Isir, to ANTARA in Jakarta on Wednesday. In practice, he said Polri, through the Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortastipidkor), will refer to and adhere to the MK ruling, particularly in applying Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption. Previously, the MK amended the wording of the article on obstruction of justice within Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption to prevent misinterpretation. In Decision No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Court stated that the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ in the Article 21 provision of the Eradication of Corruption Law is unconstitutional and has no binding legal force. In the Court’s legal reasoning, Constitutional Judge Arsul Sani said the phrase ‘or indirectly’ in the provision about obstruction of justice allows forms of conduct that appear not explicit, but are deemed to hinder the judicial process. These acts, he added, include disseminating disinformation, social pressure, or the use of intermediaries whose assessment is conducted subjectively by law enforcement officers. If linked to the applicants’ profession, activities by lawyers publishing through media or holding public discussions and seminars to defend their clients could potentially be categorised as indirect obstruction of justice. The same potential, according to the MK, can also arise from journalistic activities that investigate an ongoing case with the aim of informing the public. The MK considered that the existence of the term ‘or indirectly’ in Article 21 of the anti-corruption law blurs the line between lawful acts within the realm of freedom of expression and acts that are unlawful. ‘Thus, it could lead to what is called over-criminalisation,’ said Arsul.