Why Was the Article Struck Down by the Constitutional Court Revived in the Criminal Code?
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - A norm previously struck down by the Constitutional Court (MK) has re-emerged in the National Criminal Code (KUHP).
The revival of this norm touches on the sensitive boundary between protecting state symbols and citizens’ freedom of expression.
The issue was directly addressed during a material examination hearing for the KUHP held at the MK on Monday (13/4/2026).
Saldi revealed that there is currently a petition requesting the MK to invalidate those norms once again.
Even though they were previously declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the rules have been ‘revived’ by the lawmakers.
“The Court has already ruled on this before, yet it has been revived by the lawmakers,” said Saldi.
In the same hearing, Constitutional Court Justice Arsul Sani specifically questioned the article in question.
He referred to the lawsuit in case 27/PUU-XXIII/2025, which requests that Articles 237(b) and (c) of the KUHP be declared unconstitutional.
According to Arsul, the norm in those articles has the same substance as Article 69(c) of Law No. 24 of 2009 on State Symbols.
However, the article in Law 24/2009 was annulled by the MK through Decision No. 4/PUU-X/2012 about 13 years ago.
The wording of the revived articles is as follows:
Anyone who:
creates emblems for individuals, political parties, associations, organisations, and/or companies that are the same as or resemble the state emblem; or
uses the state emblem for purposes other than those regulated by law
shall be punished with a fine of up to category II.
Meanwhile, Article 69 of Law 24 of 2009, which was annulled by the MK, reads:
Anyone who:
creates emblems for individuals, political parties, associations, organisations, and/or companies that are the same as or resemble the state emblem; or
intentionally uses the state emblem for purposes other than those regulated in this law
shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 100 million rupiah.
The most striking difference lies in the type of sanction: from a threat of imprisonment to a fine in the new KUHP.