Constitutional Court Decision 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the offences of spreading false news and of spreading uncertain, exaggerated or incomplete news that causes a riot, in Pasal 263 and 264 of the Criminal Code (Undang-Undang 1/2023) in the wording given by Undang-Undang 1/2026 on criminal penalty adjustment (Penyesuaian Pidana).^[1][2] The petition was brought by four individual citizens, recorded in the decision as law students.^[3] It is one of the constitutional review cases on criminal law in Indonesia decided on 12 August 2026.

The Court rejected the petition in its entirety. Relying on its reasoning in Decision 170/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the same articles, it held that both offences require intent in the form of actual knowledge, that both are result offences requiring a riot in physical space and a causal link between the publication and the riot, and that all elements must be proved cumulatively. On that reading the provisions gave fair legal certainty and did not unduly restrict freedom of expression.^[4][5][6]

¶ Provisions under review

In the wording reviewed, Pasal 263 punishes anyone who broadcasts or disseminates news or a notice knowing it to be false, where this results in a riot (kerusuhan) in society, with imprisonment of up to six years or a category V fine. Pasal 264 punishes anyone who broadcasts news that is uncertain, exaggerated or incomplete, knowing that such news results in a riot in society, with imprisonment of up to two years or a category III fine.^[3:1]

The two provisions succeeded Pasal 14 and 15 of Undang-Undang 1/1946 on criminal law regulations, which the Court had declared unconstitutional in Decision 78/PUU-XXI/2023, pronounced on 21 March 2024, because the elements of false news and of uncertain or exaggerated news lacked a clear measure and had become "rubber articles" (pasal karet) creating legal uncertainty.^[4:1]

¶ Petition

The petition, dated 13 January 2026, was registered on 14 January 2026 and revised on 9 February 2026.^[7] Relying on the guarantees of fair legal certainty and freedom of thought, expression and opinion in Pasal 28D(1) and 28E(2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, the petitioners argued that the phrases "knowing" (padahal diketahuinya, sedangkan diketahuinya) did not distinguish direct intent, conditional intent, actual knowledge and negligence; that the wording of Pasal 264 reproduced the phrases struck down in Decision 78/PUU-XXI/2023; that "results in a riot" set no standard of causation; and that the breadth of the provisions left wide discretion to law enforcers and produced a chilling effect on academic and public discussion.^[8] The relief asked the Court to declare both articles unconstitutional and without binding force.^[2:1]

The Court heard the House of Representatives on 13 April 2026 and the President on 9 March 2026, and took the evidence in joint plenary hearings with five other petitions on the Criminal Code, including Decision 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 and Decision 27/PUU-XXIV/2026.^[9][10]

¶ Ruling

¶ Pasal 263

The Court restated its reasoning in Decision 170/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 29 June 2026. Unlike Pasal 14(2) of Undang-Undang 1/1946, which required only that the offender ought reasonably to have suspected the news to be false, Pasal 263 requires that the offender knew it to be false. The offence has three cumulative elements: broadcasting or disseminating news, knowing it to be false, and a riot in society resulting from its spread. A person who spreads news known to be false is not punishable if no riot follows, and the causal link must be proved. Following Decision 115/PUU-XXII/2024 of 29 April 2025 on the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, a riot means a disturbance of public order in physical space, not in digital or cyber space.^[4:2]

In terms of fault, the Court held that Pasal 263 adopts intent (dolus), not negligence (culpa), requiring proof of the offender's actual knowledge that the information was false and of the will to spread it, and, as a result offence, proof of causation. The challenge to the phrases "knowing" and "results in a riot" was therefore unfounded.^[4:3]

¶ Pasal 264

The Court held that Pasal 264 had dropped the element "at least ought reasonably to suspect" found in Pasal 15 of Undang-Undang 1/1946, which left unclear whether the offence was intentional or negligent, and replaced it with knowledge that the news results in a riot. That change was a direct implementation of Decision 78/PUU-XXI/2023. Liability under Pasal 264 arises only if four elements are proved cumulatively: broadcasting uncertain, exaggerated or incomplete news; knowledge that doing so results in a riot; an actual riot in physical space; and a causal link between the act and the riot. Failure of any element defeats the charge.^[5:1]

The Court concluded that neither article breached Pasal 28D(1) or 28E(2) and (3) of the Constitution.^[11] The operative order rejected the petition in its entirety. The decision was reached in deliberation on 4 August 2026 by nine justices, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 12 August 2026; it records no dissenting opinion.^[6:1]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 24 August 2026. That account describes the petition as a challenge to penalty settings under Undang-Undang 1/2026 and does not identify the two false-news offences that the decision records as the provisions under review.^[12][1:1]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 73/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 280/PUU-XXIII/2025
• Constitutional Court Decision 260/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of the Criminal Penalty Adjustment Law: MK 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 24 August 2026)

¶ References