The Constitutional Court Rejects The Criminal Code's Material Test Regarding The Attack On The President's Dignity

Screenshot of Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in the trial of reading the verdict/VIA BETWEEN

JAKARTA - The Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) stated that the lawsuit in case number 7/PUU-XXI/2023 was unacceptable when the applicant asked the judges to examine Articles 218 and 219 of the Criminal Code which regulates the threat of punishment for anyone who attacks the president's dignity. "Declare that the petitioner's application cannot be accepted," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in a hearing to read the verdict, monitored on the YouTube channel of the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, Antara, Tuesday, February 28. The case was filed by four applicants consisting of two lecturers, content creators, and students. They sued four articles in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code. These articles include Articles 218 paragraphs (1) and 219 of the Criminal Code which regulate the threat of punishment for anyone who attacks the honor or dignity of the president and vice president in public, including doing so by means of information technology. In addition to these two articles, the petitioners also asked the panel of judges to examine Article 240 paragraph (1) and Article 241 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code which regulates punishment for anyone who insults public power or state institutions in public, including doing so by means of information technology. In its consideration, the Constitutional Court considers that the Criminal Code will only apply in three years, namely on January 2, 2026. Therefore, the Constitutional Court assesses that the constitutional rights of the applicants have not been related to the articles of the Criminal Code which have been sued and have not caused constitutional losses to them, either potential losses (in the future) or actual (currently). The assessment is based on the assumption of "constitutional loss" referred to in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 11/PUU-V/2007. This assumption made the constitutional panel of judges decide not to consider further the main petition in this case. "The point of petition for the applicants is premature," said Anwar.