KPK ensures that law enforcement remains consistent after the Constitutional Court removes the phrase in the obstruction of investigation article 

JAKARTA - The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) respects the Constitutional Court (MK) decision to change the wording of Article 21 of the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor) regarding obstruction of legal proceedings or obstruction of justice (OOJ).

KPK spokesman Budi Prasetyo said that as a law enforcement agency, his party was subject to and followed the Supreme Court's decision. The deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in the article is considered important to ensure the principle of legal certainty or lex certa.

"We understand the Court's consideration that the norm has the potential to give rise to diverse interpretations and open up a wide room for interpretation, so the decision to remove the phrase is part of an effort to ensure the principle of lex certa or legal certainty in criminal law enforcement," Budi told reporters through a written statement quoted Tuesday, March 3.

Budi ensured that the KPK would continue to be committed to carrying out its duties and authorities.

"The KPK also emphasizes that the Constitutional Court's decision is an important instrument in the legal state order that guides law enforcement officials in interpreting and applying criminal norms appropriately, proportionately, and consistently," he said.

"Thus, the KPK will continue to carry out its function of eradicating corruption by paying attention to the principles of legality, legal certainty, and protection of the constitutional rights of the public," continued Budi.

As previously reported, the Constitutional Court (MK) changed the wording of the article on obstruction of justice or obstruction of justice in Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Tipikor Law) so that it is not easily misunderstood.

Through the decision number 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court stated that the phrase "directly or indirectly" in the norm of Article 21 of the Corruption Law is contrary to the constitution and does not have binding legal force.

"Granting the applicant's request for a part," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading the verdict, reported by ANTARA, Monday, March 2.

In the legal consideration section, Constitutional Judge Arsul Sani said the phrase 'or indirectly' in the provision on judicial obstruction allowed for forms of acts that did not seem explicit, but were considered to hinder the judicial process.

This act, added Arsul, is like the spread of disinformation, social pressure or the use of intermediaries whose assessments are subjectively carried out by law enforcement officers.

If associated with the applicant's profession, the activities of the lawyer to publish through the media or hold public discussions and seminars in order to defend his client will potentially be categorized as a form of indirect judicial obstruction.

The same potential, according to the Constitutional Court, can also occur with journalistic activities that investigate a case that is ongoing with the aim of providing information to the public.

The Constitutional Court considers that the existence of the phrase "or indirectly" in Article 21 of the Corruption Tipikor Law has blurred the boundaries between lawful acts in the space of freedom of expression and unlawful acts.

"So it has the potential to cause what is called excessive criminalization or overcriminalization," said Arsul.