Constitutional Court Decision 244/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 27A and Pasal 45(4) of the law on electronic information and transactions (the ITE Law), as amended by Undang-Undang 1/2024: the offence of attacking another person's honour or good name through electronic information, and the penalty attached to it.^[1][2] The petition was brought by five university students, who asked the Court to confine the offence so that it would not reach conduct in the public interest, in self-defence or in criticism of public policy.^[3][4] The case belongs to criminal law and procedure in Indonesia and is one of the constitutional review cases decided by the Court on 30 July 2026.^[5]

The Court held that it had jurisdiction but did not reach the merits. The petitioners had filed no evidence with their petition, did not file the revision and evidence the Court had advised, and did not attend the hearing called to receive them; the Court held that the petition failed the formal filing requirements and declared it inadmissible.^[6][7][5:1] The two provisions were not reviewed on their substance.

¶ Provisions under review

Undang-Undang 1/2024, the second amendment of Undang-Undang 11/2008, was signed and promulgated on 2 January 2024.^[8] It inserted Pasal 27A, which describes the prohibited conduct: any person intentionally attacking the honour or good name of another by alleging a matter, with the intention that it become publicly known, in the form of electronic information or documents carried out through an electronic system. The elucidation explains the attack as conduct that demeans or damages another person's good name or self-esteem to that person's detriment, including by slander.^[2:1] Pasal 45(4) sets the penalty at imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of up to Rp400,000,000. Under Pasal 45(5) the offence is prosecuted only on the complaint of the victim or the person affected, not of a legal entity, and Pasal 45(7) provides that the conduct is not punished where it is done in the public interest or out of necessity in self-defence.^[9] Pasal II ayat (1) of the amending law provides that Pasal 27A and Pasal 45(4), among other provisions, apply until the entry into force of Undang-Undang 1/2023 on the Criminal Code.^[10]

¶ Petition

The petition, dated 23 April 2026, was received by the Court on 22 June 2026 and registered on 23 June 2026.^[11] It described the two provisions as vague and open to several readings, argued that they restricted freedom of expression in the digital sphere, and relied on the right to express opinions in Pasal 28E(3) of the 1945 Constitution and the right to fair legal certainty in Pasal 28D(1); it also argued that the protection of dignity in Pasal 28G(1) should not be read so widely as to suppress criticism.^[12] It asked the Court to take account of Pasal 66 of Undang-Undang 32/2009 on environmental protection, which provides that a person who fights for the right to a good and healthy environment may not be prosecuted or sued, and argued that the ITE provisions had been used against environmental activists.^[12:1][13]

The relief sought asked the Court to declare both provisions unconstitutional; to declare Pasal 27A conditionally unconstitutional unless read so that acts done in the public interest, in self-defence or as criticism of public policy are not criminal defamation; to declare that criticism by environmental defenders is constitutionally protected and cannot be punished under Pasal 27A; and to affirm the protection of citizens who express opinions and facts in the digital sphere under Pasal 28E(3).^[4:1] The petitioners submitted no evidence in support of the petition.^[14]

¶ Ruling

¶ Procedure

The Court recorded that the petition had been filed online as a PDF and a word-processor file, without a list of evidence or any evidence. At the preliminary examination on 6 July 2026 it advised the petitioners, under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36(3) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases, to clarify the Court's jurisdiction, their standing, the grounds and the relief, and to supply evidence, and it allowed fourteen days, until 12.00 WIB on 20 July 2026, for a signed revision with evidence.^[6:1] Nothing was filed by that deadline. At the further hearing held that afternoon to examine the revision and validate the evidence, the petitioners did not appear, although they had been duly summoned by the Court's letter of 14 July 2026.^[6:2]

¶ Formal requirements

The Court applied Pasal 10(4) of Peraturan MK 7/2025, which requires a petition to be accompanied by evidence and a list of the evidence supporting it, and Pasal 12(3), which requires an online filing to be accompanied by one copy of the evidence bearing the duty stamp prescribed by law. It observed that, although it could have considered the original petition in the absence of a revision, the petition was supported by no valid evidence despite the advice given, and held without doubt that it did not meet the formal requirements for a statutory review petition. It therefore did not consider the petition further, and treated the remaining matters as irrelevant.^[7:1]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible. The decision was reached by nine justices in deliberation on 21 July 2026 and pronounced in open plenary session on 30 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding; representatives of the House of Representatives and the President attended, and the petitioners did not.^[5:2]

¶ Related decisions and reporting

The same evidence provisions of Peraturan MK 7/2025 disposed of decision 256/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Police Law, pronounced the same day, in which evidence had been filed but without duty stamps.^[15] Also on 30 July 2026 the Court declared inadmissible, as unclear, a petition on the objectives clause of the ITE Law in decision 260/PUU-XXIV/2026.^[16]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 28 September 2026.^[17]

¶ See also

• Data governance in Indonesia
• Constitutional Court Decision 26/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 275/PUU-XXIII/2025

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Evidentiary Requirements in Review of the ITE Law: MK 244/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 28 September 2026)

¶ References