Constitutional Court Decision 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the offences in Undang-Undang 1/2023 on the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, KUHP) of attacking the honour or dignity of the President or Vice-President, and of the provision making those offences prosecutable only on complaint.^[1] The petition was brought by fifteen individual citizens, recorded in the decision as students.^[2] It is one of the constitutional review cases on criminal law in Indonesia decided on 12 August 2026.

The Court upheld the two offences in Pasal 218 and 219, holding that they differ in construction from the insult provisions of the colonial-era Criminal Code it had struck down in 2006, and that the exception for acts done in the public interest or in self-defence protects criticism. It granted the petition in part on Pasal 220(1), finding that the complaint rule left open who may complain, and declared it conditionally unconstitutional unless read to mean that the offences may be prosecuted only on a complaint by the President and/or Vice-President.^[3][4]

¶ Provisions under review

Pasal 218(1) of the Criminal Code punishes anyone who publicly attacks the honour or dignity (kehormatan atau harkat dan martabat) of the President or Vice-President with imprisonment of up to three years and six months or a category IV fine; Pasal 218(2) provides that an act done in the public interest or in self-defence is not such an attack. Pasal 219 punishes with up to four years' imprisonment or a category IV fine the broadcasting, display or dissemination, including by information technology, of writing, images or recordings containing such an attack, with intent that their content become publicly known. Pasal 220(1) makes both offences prosecutable only on complaint (aduan), and Pasal 220(2) provides that the complaint "may be made in writing by the President and/or Vice-President".^[2:1]

¶ Petition

The petition, dated 29 December 2025, was registered on 29 December 2025 and revised on 26 January 2026.^[5] The petitioners argued that the three provisions granted the President and Vice-President special protection by reason of office alone, contrary to equality before the law, legal certainty, freedom of expression and association and the right to communicate and obtain information, in Pasal 27(1), 28D(1), 28E(2) and (3) and 28F of the 1945 Constitution, and that they exposed students engaged in public discussion to the risk of prosecution.^[2:2][6] The relief asked the Court to declare Pasal 218, 219 and 220 unconstitutional and without binding force.^[7]

The Court heard the House of Representatives on 13 April 2026 and received the President's written statement on 9 March 2026, together with evidence from experts called by both the petitioners and the President. It took the evidence in joint plenary hearings with five other petitions on the Criminal Code, including Decision 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 and Decision 27/PUU-XXIV/2026.^[8][9]

¶ Ruling

¶ Admissibility and earlier decisions

The Court held that the petition was not barred as a repeat review under Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025. Three earlier petitions on the same articles, decided in Decisions 7/PUU-XXI/2023, 143/PUU-XXII/2024 and 106/PUU-XXIV/2026, had been declared inadmissible or withdrawn without a ruling on the merits, and the present petition rested on different grounds.^[6:1] The Court then set out the place of freedom of expression, including criticism of those who hold public power, citing Pasal 28E(3) and 28F of the Constitution, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as ratified by Undang-Undang 12/2005, and the Rabat Plan of Action, and held that law enforcement must apply a high threshold so that satirical or offensive expression is not automatically treated as a crime.^[10]

It compared the new offences with Pasal 134, 136 bis and 137 of the former Criminal Code, which it had declared unconstitutional in Decision 013-022/PUU-IV/2006 of 6 December 2006. The earlier provisions punished "insult" in general terms, had no exception, and were ordinary offences prosecutable without a complaint. The new provisions punish only an attack on honour or dignity, exempt acts done in the public interest or in self-defence, and are complaint offences, so the 2006 decision could not by itself render them unconstitutional.^[11]

¶ Pasal 218 and 219

The Court held that the President and Vice-President carry two dimensions, as holders of state office and as individuals, and that equality before the law allows proportionate distinctions that neither exempt them from the law nor shield them from criticism and public oversight; Pasal 218(1) protects the dignity of the presidential institution as well as the person.^[12] It treated the exception in Pasal 218(2), read with its elucidation, which describes the public interest as including demonstrations, criticism and opinions differing from presidential policy, as a safeguard against excessive application.^[13] It found no uncertainty in the elements of Pasal 219, which elaborates the offence in Pasal 218, and rejected the challenge to both articles.^[14]

¶ Pasal 220(1)

Drawing on Decision 013-022/PUU-IV/2006, which had observed that prosecution of insult against the President should rest on a complaint, and on Decision 31/PUU-XIII/2015, which rejected differential treatment of insults against officials, the Court held that the existence of an attack on the President's or Vice-President's dignity cannot be left to the judgment of anyone other than the person attacked. Pasal 220(1) made the offences complaint offences, but the word dapat ("may") in Pasal 220(2) left open a reading under which persons other than the President or Vice-President could complain. To close that gap, and to prevent relatives, sympathisers, supporters, volunteers or other third parties from starting criminal proceedings in the President's name, the Court read Pasal 220(1) as permitting prosecution only on a complaint by the President and/or Vice-President, made in person or through a lawyer holding a special power of attorney.^[3:1]

The operative order granted the petition in part, declared Pasal 220(1) contrary to the Constitution and conditionally without binding force unless read as "Tindak Pidana sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 218 dan Pasal 219 hanya dapat dituntut berdasarkan aduan oleh Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden", ordered publication in the State Gazette, and rejected the remainder. The decision was reached in deliberation on 9 July 2026 by nine justices, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 12 August 2026; it records no dissenting opinion.^[4:1]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 25 August 2026. That account gives the number of petitioners as twelve; the decision lists fifteen.^[15][2:3]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 280/PUU-XXIII/2025
• Constitutional Court Decision 73/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 202/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of Presidential Insult Offences: MK 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 (crpg.id, 25 August 2026)

¶ References