MK's Decision Emphasizes that Journalists Cannot Be Directly Sentenced to Law

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has clarified the meaning of the phrase "legal protection" for journalists as stipulated in Article 8 of Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the application of criminal and civil sanctions against journalists can only be carried out after the dispute resolution mechanism for the press at the Press Council has been fully pursued.

The decision was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in a plenary session announcing the Decision on Case Number 145/PUU-XXIII/2025 in Jakarta, Monday, January 19. In the ruling, the Court stated that it granted the applicants' request for a part.

The court stated that the phrase "legal protection" in Article 8 of the Press Law was in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, conditionally, as long as it was not interpreted that the application of criminal and/or civil sanctions against journalists who carry out their profession legally could only be carried out after the right to reply, the right to correction, and the alleged violation of the code of journalistic ethics were resolved through the Press Council and did not reach an agreement as part of the principle of restorative justice.

Article 8 of the previous Press Law only stated that in carrying out their profession, journalists are protected by law, without further explanation regarding the form and limits of such protection.

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah in his legal consideration stated that the norm of Article 8 of the Press Law is declarative and does not provide concrete legal protection consequences. According to him, this condition has the potential to create legal uncertainty for journalists.

"If the norm is not clearly and concretely interpreted by the Court, it has the potential to immediately trap journalists without first going through the mechanisms that have been regulated in Law Number 40 of 1999," said Guntur.

He emphasized that any legal action against journalists in carrying out journalistic duties must prioritize the press protection mechanism as stipulated in the Press Law, including the role of the Press Council.

The court also emphasized that disputes arising from journalistic works must first be resolved through the press mechanism by involving the consideration of the Press Council, before taking the path of criminal or civil law.

In considering its decision, the Constitutional Court highlighted that there are still journalists who face legal charges as a result of carrying out journalistic functions. This condition is considered to have the potential to criminalize the press, given that journalistic activities often intersect with the interests of power, politics, economy, and society.

Therefore, the Court considers that special and affirmative legal protection for journalists is not a form of privilege, but an instrument to realize substantive justice and guarantee press freedom.

Based on these considerations, the Constitutional Court stated that the application filed by the Law Journalists Association (Iwakum) together with national media journalist Rizky Suryarandika was reasonable according to the law.

However, three constitutional judges, namely Saldi Isra, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Arsul Sani, delivered a different opinion or dissenting opinion. The three of them argued that the application should be rejected.