TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Criminal Code’s opponents turn to weakened Constitutional Court
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Activists protest outside the House of Representatives building in Senayan, Jakarta, on Dec. 6, 2022, after the passage of the revised Criminal Code. (Reuters/Willy Kurniawan)
S
tudents, professionals, academics and activists have filed petitions with the Constitutional Court calling for it to annul controversial provisions in the new Criminal Code, as the judiciary faces increased pressure from the legislature to come to heel.
A lawyer representing two law lecturers, a student and a content creator registered a petition with the court on Monday, days after President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo signed the controversial revised Criminal Code, which was passed by the House of Representatives in December 2022.
The petitioners are asking the court to annul Articles 218 and 219, which stipulate a punishment of up to three years for insulting a sitting president and up to four years if the offense is committed using a technological device.
They are also seeking the annulment of Articles 240 and 241, which criminalize insulting the government, the House, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and carry a punishment of one and a half years in prison and up to three years if committed using a technological device.
Similar provisions in the old criminal code were repealed by the Constitutional Court in 2006 and 2007 on the grounds that they undermined the right to freedom of expression.
But policymakers reintroduced them in the new penal code, insisting that the current provisions were different, as only the offended party – in this case, the president – could initiate legal proceedings by filing a report with the police.
“As academics, they fear the provisions could be used to criminalize critics. That is why they filed a petition against those articles,” said Zico Leonard, the lawyer representing the petitioners.
