January 7, 2026
JAKARTA – Members of the general public have filed judicial review petitions to challenge several articles of the newly effective Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) feared of limiting civil liberties and enabling excessive use of power by state authorities.
As of Tuesday, four days after the new laws came into force, the Constitutional Court has received at least 10 petitions filed by private company employees and law school students against several articles of the new KUHP and KUHAP.
One petition, filed by 12 students from Universitas Terbuka, urged the court justices to declare Article 218 of KUHP unconstitutional. The article stipulates criminal sanctions for any individuals found guilty of “attacking the honor or dignity” of the country’s president and vice president.
In another petition, 12 students from the same university, challenged Articles 240 and 241 in the Criminal Code on insults against the government and state institutions that may provoke public disorder, including ones disbursed through electronic platforms.
The law defines the government as “the president, vice president and cabinet ministers” and state institutions as “People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council (DPD), the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court”.
Such protections for officials and institutions are not relevant anymore, according to lawyer Zico Leonard Simanjuntak who represents some of the plaintiffs. He argued the Constitutional Court has long scrapped similar provisions in the previous version of the KUHP.
“The petitioners fear these articles will pose a higher risk of criminalization to government critics,” Zico said on Monday.
With the maximum punishment of four years behind bars, Zico added the provisions would eventually raise fear among the public and shrink civil liberties.
Another plaintiffs, also a group of law school students, challenged Article 256 of KUHP that punishes any people who do not notify the police before holding public rallies. They argued the provision adds more bureaucratic hurdles for citizens staging a protest and fails to accommodate the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
A pair of private company employees identified as Lina and Sandra Paramita also challenged several articles in the KUHAP, including provisions about interrogation against people who are reported for an alleged crime during the investigation stage of a case.
‘Law emergency’
Sulistyowati Irianto, law professor at the University of Indonesia, calls the wave of judicial review petitions “understandable”, given the deliberation of both laws deemed bypassing meaningful public participation and academic scrutiny.
“Several provisions put civil movements into a more vulnerable spot towards criminalization,” she said, adding that the recent petitions may lead to a larger wave of similar resistance from civil groups and other members of the public.
The new KUHP was passed in 2022 to replace a nearly-century-old Criminal Code in use since the Dutch colonial era, with the government boasting that the law marked the beginning of a more humane, modern and just era of law enforcement in the country.
Meanwhile, the KUHAP was passed into law by the House in November 2025. It serves as the procedural framework for how law enforcement authorities may exercise their powers to enforce the Criminal Code.
Both laws came into effect on Jan. 2.
But both regulations have since been under intense scrutiny, with a coalition of civic groups and academia declaring a state of “law emergency” due to concerns of eroding civil liberties and rising criminalization from the implementation of the new laws.
Criminal law expert Abdul Fickar Hadjar from Trisakti University, for example, called the defamation provision in the KUHP no longer relevant in the present day, as it should protect individuals rather than state institutions or government officials.
Usman Hamid of Amnesty International Indonesia, a member of the coalition, raised concerns on the new KUHAP that expands the role of the police and sidelines sufficient judicial oversight.
Article 6 of the new law designated police investigators as “principal investigators” in all criminal case investigations, putting other civil servant investigators (PPNS), such as ones from the Forestry Ministry and the immigration office, under the coordination of the National Police.
“This condition weakens the check and balance principle and opens potential power abuse [from the police], while showing excessive state authority,” Usman said on Monday.
In a press briefing on Monday, Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas dismissed claims the new laws were designed to erode democracy, reassuring that criticism towards the government should remain vital.
“Please continue to offer criticism since ‘healthy criticism’ benefits the government, as long as it is done with the intention of serving the interests of the nation and state,” he said.
Responding to concerns over the expanded role of the National Police, the minister said provisions in both laws only stipulate coordination between police investigators with their civil servant counterparts, rather than giving more authorities to the former.