January 19, 2026
JAKARTA – Last week, Jumisih joined a coalition of women and workers rights groups outside the United States Embassy in Jakarta, where they held banners and voiced support for Venezuelans following a US military strike in the country.
As usual, they sent a brief message to notify Jakarta Police of their planned demonstration. But this time, the familiar ritual carried a new weight as Indonesia’s new Criminal Code (KUHP), which took effect on Jan. 2, stirred unease among protest organizers.
Under Article 256, anyone who holds a public rally without notifying authorities, and whose actions are perceived to “disrupts public order, creates chaos or triggers unrest” can face up to six months in prison or fines of up to Rp 10 million (US$591.44), raising fears that spontaneous expressions of dissent could be criminalized.
“I think this policy is designed to protect those in power and capital owners,” Jumisih said on Wednesday, arguing that labor protests often erupt unplanned when sudden shifts in company or government policy trigger strikes and demonstrations.
“The government is supposed to protect freedom of expression,” added the activist from All-Indonesia United Workers Confederation (KPBI). “But when it comes with threats like this, it has a strong silencing effect.”
Waves of spontaneous protests swept across the country last August, initially driven by workers and students opposing economic inequality and lawmakers’ lavish allowance. Tensions escalated after the tragic death of a 21-year-old online motorcycle driver Affan Kurniawan, who was run over and killed by police driving an armored vehicle while dispersing protesters in Jakarta on Aug. 28.
Muhammad Bagir Shadr, a board member of the University of Indonesia Law Faculty student executive body (BEM FH UI), recalled joining the demonstrations.
“Some protests can be planned, but very often they are reactions from an angry public,” he said, noting that UI protesters did not submit any notification to the police at the time.
“If people are required to submit notification letters first, that anger will dissipate […] It is absurd that a piece of paper could prevent us from expressing our aspirations.”
Article 256 stands in contrast to Law No. 9/1998 on freedom of expression, which requires organizers to notify authorities at least three days before a demonstration, and provides only for dispersal as a sanction if the requirement is not met.
Bagir said the difference underscores why the new provision is problematic, potentially criminalizing what has traditionally been a democratic right.
No longer free
In Semarang, Central Java, the threat of dispersal has never deterred Dipenogero University (Undip) students and residents from staging rallies. Nur Maajid, chair of BEM Undip said demonstrators were well aware of the risks, but the new penal code has heightened their concerns, particularly over the vague definition of what constitutes a “chaotic” protest that could lead to criminal penalties.
“The notion of ‘chaos’ is highly abstract and comes without a clear explanation,” he said on Wednesday, adding that the provision also risks redefining freedom of expression as a conditional right and could make the public see demonstrations as futile or anarchic.
“When the state requires people to notify authorities before staging a protest, it no longer feels like freedom,” he added.
Deputy Law Minister Edward “Eddy” Omar Sharif Hiariej said in a Jan. 5 briefing that Article 256 was not intended to ban the right to demonstrate, dismissing concerns that it restricts freedom of expression.
“If I, as a protest organizer, notify the police, then chaos arises, I can’t be charged,” Eddy explained. “If I don’t notify the police but no chaos occurs, I also can’t be charged.”
Criminal law expert Abdul Fickar Hadjar of Trisakti University disagreed, describing the provision “a setback” that risks obstructing citizens’ right to express their views.
“It treats democratic rights as nothing more than an administrative matter, which amounts to an abuse of those rights,” he said on Thursday.
The article is now being challenged at the Constitutional Court by 13 law students from Universitas Terbuka, with the first hearing held on Monday. Petitioners argued that the right to assembly and expression is guaranteed by the Constitution and should not be contingent on prior notification.
“It is now up to the court to draw a clear line between the exercise of democratic rights and administrative obligations that should not negate citizens’ political rights,” Abdul said.