Intent in the Criminal Code Offence of Using False Diplomas: MK 308/PUU-XXIV/2026

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) decided case 308/PUU-XXIV/2026, a material review of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, brought by the petitioner Hellyana. The petition tested Article 272(2) and Article 622(8) of Law 1/2023 against Article 1(3) and Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court pronounced its decision on 29 September 2026.

The petitioner argued that Article 272(2), which punishes any person who uses a false diploma, competency certificate, or academic, professional or vocational title, does not make clear what mental element must be proved, in particular whether the offender must know the document is false. The petitioner asked the Court to read the words "which he knows to be false or knows to have been obtained without right" into the provision. The petitioner also argued that Article 622(8) failed to redirect the criminal provision on unlawful use of titles in Article 28(7) read with Article 93 of Law Number 12 of 2012 on Higher Education to Article 272(2).

Legal Reasoning

The Court found the petition clear enough to decide without hearing other parties under Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.

On Article 622(8), the Court held that the provision had been changed by Law Number 1 of 2026 on Penalty Adjustment. Because the petition still framed its object as Article 622(8) of Law 1/2023, without referring to the provision as amended by Law 1/2026, the Court treated the object of the petition as wrongly formulated, found that part of the petition unclear (obscuur), and did not consider it further.

On Article 272(2), the Court traced the offence to Article 69 of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System. It noted that the new Criminal Code no longer states the phrase "intentionally" expressly and raises the penalty to a maximum of six years' imprisonment or a category V fine. The Court held that this change in wording does not mean liability can rest only on the objective fact that the document is false. It reasoned that the word "uses" in Article 272(2) already covers the offender's awareness or intent regarding the act and its consequences.

The Court then relied on Article 36 of Law 1/2023, which makes intent and negligence the basis of criminal liability, and on the Elucidation of Article 36(2), which states that every offence must be deemed to be committed intentionally and that intent must be proved at every stage of the case. On that basis, the Court held that the absence of the phrase the petitioner sought does not remove intent as an element to be proved, and that Article 272(2) must be read together with the general rules on fault and criminal liability in Book One of the Code. It found the argument that the provision creates legal uncertainty to be without legal basis.

The Ruling

The Court rejected the petitioner's request for provisional measures. On the merits, it declared the petition inadmissible (tidak dapat diterima) as far as it concerned Article 622(8) of Law 1/2023, and rejected the remainder of the petition.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Checked against the official text of decision 308/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 15 October 2026. This 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.