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.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsActivists remain wary as court narrows presidential insult provisions
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!
Set as preferred source
Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo (center) presides over a hearing to read rulings on 20 judicial review petitions at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on July 30, 2026. (Antara/Hafidz Mubarak A)
T
he Constitutional Court’s recent ruling that alleged insults against the president or vice president can only be prosecuted upon their complaint has not quieted fears for free speech amid growing intimidation of critics.
In a hearing on Wednesday, the nine-justice panel partially granted a petition challenging three articles of the new Criminal Code (KUHP), namely Articles 218, 219 and 220, which criminalize acts deemed to attack the honor or dignity of the president or vice president.
The petition, filed by 15 law students, sought to overturn the provisions and clarify who was eligible to file a complaint under them, arguing that the legal uncertainty could create a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
The Court acknowledged the ambiguity, ruling that alleged insults against the president or vice president could only be prosecuted based on a complaint filed by the person concerned. It effectively bars family members, supporters, sympathizers and other third parties from filing complaints on their behalf.
“The decision is made so that there’s no room for other parties [...] to file a criminal proceeding based on their own judgment,” Justice Guntur said.
Read also: The Constitutional Court ruling that is (not) final and binding
The bench, however, rejected the petitioners’ request to overturn the three provisions, ruling that the defamation articles remained constitutional and could serve their intended purpose without undermining freedom of expression.
