Constitutional Review of Presidential Insult Offences: MK 275/PUU-XXIII/2025

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia decided case 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 on 12 August 2026, ruling on a material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code. The petition was filed by fifteen individual petitioners, led by Afifah Nabila Fitri, who challenged the treatment of insult directed at the President and Vice President and, specifically, the mechanism through which such conduct may be brought to trial. Three provisions framed the case: Pasal 218 and Pasal 219, which define the offence and its aggravated form, and Pasal 220(1), which governs how a prosecution may be initiated.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by asking whether Pasal 218, Pasal 219 and Pasal 220 of the 2023 Criminal Code share the construction of the provisions it had struck down earlier, and held that they do not: they reach only conduct attacking the honour or dignity of the President or Vice President, exclude conduct in the public interest or in self-defence, and are complaint offences, so the earlier decision could not by itself render them unconstitutional. Those earlier provisions were Pasal 134, Pasal 136 bis and Pasal 137 of the former Criminal Code, struck down in Decision 013-022/PUU-IV/2006, which had criminalised insult against the head of state as an ordinary offence prosecutable on the initiative of the state.

Turning to the current text, the Court held that the special protection of the President and Vice President in Pasal 218(1) is justified by the constitutional position of the office, that the public-interest and self-defence exceptions in Pasal 218(2) keep room for criticism, and that Pasal 219 is not unclear. On Pasal 220, it found that Pasal 220(1) makes the offences complaint offences without saying who may complain, while the word "dapat" in Pasal 220(2) leaves room for complaints by others; it therefore read Pasal 220(1) as an absolute complaint offence reserved to the President and Vice President. It depends entirely on the will of the President or Vice President as the party who considers himself or herself harmed.

The House of Representatives (DPR), in its statement to the Court, relied on the drafting record. It cited the minutes of the drafting team's session with the Government dated 16 January 2008, which recorded the formulation of what became Pasal 218 and Pasal 219. In that session the Government explained that the draft article, then numbered 263, was written as a response to the Court's earlier annulment: it carried over the substance of the old Pasal 134(1) while adding a second paragraph providing that conduct does not constitute insult where it is plainly carried out in the public interest, for the sake of establishing what is true, or in self-defence. The Government described that addition as a limitation that removes the unlawful character of the conduct, so that criticism connected to the running of state affairs would not attract punishment.

The record also shows the drafters comparing the presidential provisions with the general chapter on insult offences, which the legal experts present identified as running from Pasal 540 to Pasal 550 and covering defamation, slander, minor insult, false accusation and defamation of the deceased. The meeting chair pressed for a settled definition of what counts as insult, placed in the body of the statute rather than left to the elucidation, so that the assessment would not rest on the subjective impression of law enforcement officers. One member of the drafting body asked for the meaning of the truth-related exception to be recorded in the elucidation, noting that the general defamation chapter contained no equivalent phrase, and an expert raised whether a factually accurate statement may still injure reputation. The DPR offered this material as evidence of what the legislature intended; the Court's own reasoning does not refer to it.

The Ruling

The Court granted the petition in part. It declared Pasal 220(1) of Law No. 1 of 2023 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal force on a conditional basis, unless the provision is read to mean: "(1) The criminal offence referred to in Pasal 218 and Pasal 219 may only be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint by the President and/or the Vice President."

The effect of the conditional formulation is that the complaint must come from the President or the Vice President, either directly or through a lawyer holding a special power of attorney, and not from family members, sympathisers, supporters, volunteers or other third parties acting in their name, nor from an authority proceeding on its own motion. The Court ordered that the decision be published in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in the customary manner, and rejected the petition as to the remaining claims, leaving Pasal 218 and Pasal 219 themselves in force as drafted.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Correction (27 September 2026): this post was checked against the official text of MK 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 and corrected. What changed: Header [1.1] lists fifteen petitioners (Pemohon I-XV), from Afifah Nabila Fitri to Alexandra Asheilla Taufik; That position is the DPR's argument [2.3]; the Court [3.15] held Pasal 218-220 differ in construction from Pasal 134, 136 bis, 137 struck down by 013-022/PUU-IV/2006; DPR's words; the Court located the absolute complaint rule in Pasal 220(1) and held the special protection in Pasal 218(1) justified by the office [3.16.1]; That is the DPR's statement; the Court upheld a distinct protection for the office in Pasal 218(1) [3.16.1]; The minutes are cited in the DPR's statement [2.3] pt 3; the Court's reasoning [3.11]-[3.19] does not refer to them; The Court's reasoning does not use the drafting record; it relies on 013-022/PUU-IV/2006 and 31/PUU-XIII/2015; Court: complaint by the President/VP directly or through a lawyer with special power of attorney; excluded are family, supporters, volunteers and other third parties. Also: 1 minor correction of detail. Report errors to contact@crpg.id.