JAKARTA, Legal Literacy — Constitutional Court The (Constitutional Court) affirms that providing legal protection to journalists is a constitutional instrument to prevent criminalization of the press and realize substantive justice. In Decision Number 145/PUU-XXIII/2025, pronounced on Monday (19/1/2026), the Constitutional Court interprets the phrase “legal protection” in Article 8 of Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press (Press Law) as a norm that must place the mechanisms of the Press Law and the Press Council as the primary forum before the use of criminal or civil instruments.
The legal considerations of the decision were read by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. This case was filed by the Association of Legal Journalists (IWAKUM) through its Chairman Irfan Kamil and Secretary-General Ponco Sulaksono, who questioned Article 8 of the Press Law and its explanation because it was considered ambiguous and could create uncertainty in the practice of journalist protection.
Constitutional Court Highlights the Risk of Criminalization of the Press
The Constitutional Court assesses that the use of prosecution instruments, both criminal and civil, against journalists who legitimately carry out journalistic functions has the potential to give rise to the criminalization of the press. This condition is understood as the use of legal processes that can silence criticism, limit the flow of information, or suppress freedom of expression.
The Constitutional Court also affirms that journalists have a position that is inherently vulnerable (vulnerable position) because journalistic activities often intersect with political, economic, and social interests. Therefore, special and affirmative legal protection for journalists is not a privilege that violates the principle of equality before the law, but rather a constitutional instrument to realize substantive justice.
Conditional Protection, Subject to Code of Ethics and Law
The Court states that legal protection for journalists is not absolute protection. This protection is conditional and subject to compliance with the journalistic code of ethics and statutory regulations. As long as journalists carry out their duties legitimately, the state and society are obliged to ensure that there are no arbitrary actions, including repressive actions, pressure, or intimidation that hinder freedom of the press.
In addition, the Constitutional Court affirms that the functions, rights, obligations, and roles of journalists as referred to in the Elucidation of Article 8 of the Press Law must be understood in their entirety as an inseparable unit from Article 8 of the Press Law. Journalists carry out press and journalistic functions to provide information, education, entertainment, and exercise social control, with the obligation to uphold truth, accuracy, and journalistic ethics.
Press Law as Lex Specialis, Press Council as the Main Forum
In the considerations of the decision, the Constitutional Court places the Press Law as lex specialis which regulates journalistic activities, including press dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, Article 8 of the Press Law is not interpreted as impunity, but rather as substantive and procedural protection from repressive actions, criminalization, and disproportionate restrictions.
The Constitutional Court emphasizes that in the event of alleged violence, intimidation, or criminalization related to journalistic work, criminal or civil instruments should not be used directly without first pursuing the mechanisms provided by the Press Law. The mechanisms of the right of reply, the right of correction, and the assessment of journalistic ethics by the Press Council must be positioned as the primary and first forum (primary remedy), and even seen as part of the restorative justice.
approach. In that framework, the use of criminal or civil sanctions against journalists is affirmed as a last resort (ultimum remedium). Law enforcement that ignores this principle is considered potentially threatening due process of law, infringes upon the constitutional rights of journalists, and harms the public's right to obtain valid, accurate, and balanced information.
Decision Verdict and Dissenting Opinion
In the verdict read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo, the Court declared that the phrase “legal protection” in Article 8 of the Press Law is in violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force conditionally, as long as it is not interpreted to mean that the application of criminal and/or civil sanctions against journalists who legitimately carry out their profession can only be used after the mechanisms of the right of reply, the right of correction, and alleged violations of the journalistic code of ethics based on consideration and settlement efforts by the Press Council do not reach an agreement as part of the application of restorative justice.
Regarding this decision, three constitutional justices—Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani—expressed dissenting opinions (dissenting opinion) which essentially stated that the petition should have been rejected.
Comments (0)
Write a comment