The Core Arguments in Roy Suryo, Rismon, and Tifa's Constitutional Court Challenges Rejected
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) decided not to accept the constitutional review petition submitted by Roy Suryo, Tifauzia Tyassuma, and Rismon Hasiholan Sianipar concerning provisions in the Criminal Code and the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (UU ITE).
The Court determined that the petitions lacked clarity or were ambiguous.
“Based on the facts and legal considerations of each petition above, the Court has no doubt in stating that the petitions in question are unclear or ambiguous,” said Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo when reading the decision at the MK Building on Monday (16 March).
“Considering that although the Court is competent to adjudicate the petitions in question, because the petitions in question are unclear or ambiguous, the Court will not further consider the petitioners’ request,” he added.
Roy Suryo and colleagues filed suits against several provisions in Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (UU ITE).
The articles tested included Article 310 paragraphs (1) and Article 311 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 433 paragraph (1) and Article 434 paragraph (1) in the new Criminal Code. Additionally, the petitioners also challenged Article 27A, Article 28 paragraph (2), Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 35 in the UU ITE.
Roy Suryo and colleagues filed suit because they felt silenced through use of these provisions. They were reported and subsequently designated as suspects by the Metro Jaya Police (Polda Metro Jaya) regarding the drafting and planned publication of a book titled “Jokowi’s White Paper.”
A key element of Roy Suryo and colleagues’ challenge was to request that the Constitutional Court decide that these articles contradicted the 1945 Constitution and lacked binding force conditionally (conditionally unconstitutional), insofar as they were not interpreted “as applying to academics, researchers, or activists who express opinions, criticism, suggestions, statements, research results, or similar matters regarding actions, behaviour, or decisions of state officials that have become public domain, whether still in office or retired, cannot be prosecuted as long as expressed in good faith for the public interest.”
On the other hand, in Decision Number 50/PUU-XXIV/2026, Justice Suhartoyo found inconsistencies between the petition’s basis and its claims, where petitions 2 through 6 were not supported by adequate legal arguments. The petitioners failed to explain why the exception to the norm should apply only to academics, researchers, and activists, while other legal subjects remained bound by the same rules without exception.
The Court considered the petition to be of a personal nature. This is because the interpretation of the norm requested was deemed to only accommodate the interests of the petitioners, whereas every Constitutional Court decision would constitutionally impact and bind society generally.
Additionally, the use of the term “juncto” in claims 7 through 9 was considered unusual and incomprehensible in meaning.
According to Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo, combining several norms in a single claim makes it difficult for judges to understand the true intent. The petitioners should have formulated each norm review separately to ensure clarity of the legal purpose.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ petition was unclear or ambiguous.
Resubmit Challenge Without Rismon
In response, Roy Suryo together with Tifauzia Tyassuma stated they would resubmit a constitutional review petition to the Constitutional Court.
“Regarding the legal language, I am leaving it entirely to my counsel. Because if they said earlier that this cannot yet be accepted, it doesn’t matter if it is resubmitted again, perhaps with even firmer wording this time,” Roy told reporters at the MK Building in Jakarta on Monday (16 March).
Roy and Tifa’s legal counsel, Refly Harun, said this time they would submit a petition with two principals only, Roy Suryo and Tifa. This is because Rismon has pursued restorative justice regarding this matter.
“Since Rismon pursued restorative justice and then went to Solo with strict supervision by investigators, we already decided not to be counsel or legal adviser to Rismon anymore. And it happens that Mr Roy and Doctor Tifa as principals have already withdrawn their mandate from Team RRT. So Team RRT has been dissolved and formed a new body named Troya. A new forum called Troya, Tifa-Roy’s Advocates,” said Refly.
“So if we want to resubmit, we will do so with just these two people,” he added.