The Jakarta Post
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 resultsSkepticism persists even as court decriminalizes insulting government
The Constitutional Court’s decision to scrap criminal penalties for insulting the government and state institutions has been applauded by activists, though they caution that the ruling alone remains insufficient to deter rising intimidation and criminalization against critics.
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
A police officer patrols the grounds of the Constitutional Court on Feb. 4, 2025, in Central Jakarta. (Antara/Bayu Pratama S.)
T
he Constitutional Court’s decision to scrap criminal penalties for insulting the government and state institutions has been applauded by activists as upholding freedom of speech, though they caution that the ruling alone remains insufficient to deter rising intimidation and criminalization against critics.
In a ruling issued on Friday, the nine-justice panel granted a petition filed by a dozen of law school students challenging Articles 240 and 241 of the new Criminal Code, which penalized defaming the government and state institutions.
The law defines the government as the president, vice president and cabinet ministers, and state institutions as People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council (DPD), the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
The petition was filed in December last year by the students, who argued that the provisions could erode public criticism and that legal protection against alleged insults should apply to individuals rather than institutions.
Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Adies Kadir said the government and state institutions must welcome any public oversight, criticism and opinion, instead of seeing them as an attempt to defame the government.
The court also warned that such provisions risked “reducing or even diminishing the constitutional rights of citizens”.
“Therefore, the provisions pose a threat of criminalizing legitimate criticism, evaluations and opinions, which could create a ‘chilling effect’ on the rights of the citizens to express their thoughts and stances openly,” Justice Adies said reading out the ruling, which overturned the two articles altogether.
