Journalistic Work Threatened, MK Decides to Close Criminal Procedure and Lawsuits

Journalistic Work Threatened, MK Decides to Close Criminal Procedure and Lawsuits

REINHA.com – PWMOI (Indonesian Online Media Journalists Association) appreciates the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) which closes criminal proceedings and lawsuits against journalistic works as long as they carry out journalistic work legally and professionally.

“This further emphasizes the position of press freedom in the legal system in Indonesia regarding Article 8 of Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press. Journalists cannot be criminalized or sued if they carry out their journalistic duties professionally,” emphasized the Chairman of PWMOJ, KRH HM. Jusuf Rizal, SH to the media in Jakarta.

The Court stated that the application of criminal and/or civil sanctions against journalists can only be carried out after all the mechanisms regulated in the Press Law have been exhausted and have not resulted in a resolution. This mechanism includes the right to reply, the right to correction, as well as assessing alleged violations of the journalistic code of ethics by the Press Council, as part of a restorative justice approach.

The Constitutional Court’s decision was made through the decision in case Number 145/PUU-XXIII/2025 regarding a request for material review submitted by the Association of Legal Journalists (Iwakum) regarding Article 8 of Law Number 40 of 1999 which was read out on Monday (19/1/2026) at the Constitutional Court Building. The Constitutional Court (MK) granted part of the request for judicial review submitted by the Association of Legal Journalists (IWAKUM)

“Granting the Petitioners’ petition in part,” said Suhartoyo when reading the verdict.

Chief Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo emphasized that the phrase “legal protection” in Article 8 of the Press Law has the potential to conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia if it is not interpreted constitutionally and operationally. Therefore, the Court provided a conditional interpretation so that the article has real legal certainty.

In separate considerations, Constitutional Justice Guntur Hamzah assessed that Article 8 of the Press Law is a fundamental norm that reflects the democratic rule of law’s commitment to press freedom as the main pillar of state life. However, these norms have so far been declarative in nature and have not provided concrete legal protection for journalists.

According to Guntur, legal protection for journalists must be understood comprehensively, covering all stages of journalistic work, from fact finding, data processing and verification, to publication to the public.

As long as the entire series of journalistic work is carried out legally, based on professionalism, the journalistic code of ethics, and applicable laws and regulations, journalists must not be easily positioned as legal subjects who are immediately subject to criminal sanctions, civil lawsuits, or acts of intimidation and violence.

Guntur emphasized that Article 8 of the Press Law functions as a safeguarding norm so that the journalist profession is not caught in criminalization, a lawsuit against silence or strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or other legal pressures that could hamper press freedom.

He added that disputes arising from journalistic work must first be resolved through the legal regime of Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press by involving the Press Council. Criminal and civil instruments should not be used as the main route, but only as a limited and exceptional measure if the press mechanism is not implemented or fails to resolve the problem.

The Court also considered that, without clear constitutional meaning, Article 8 of the Press Law has the potential to open up space for legal ensnarement of journalists directly, without first testing compliance with the press dispute resolution mechanism as regulated by law.

“For this reason, if journalists want to be criminalized for their journalistic work, they must fight against it. This MK decision is a legal weapon. This means that any party who denies it is violating the law,” stressed Jusuf Rizal, Prabowo Volunteer, President of the NGO LIRA (People’s Information Center).

Elsewhere, Herry Battileo, SH,.MH as chairman of the Indonesian Online Media Regional Leadership Council for East Nusa Tenggara Province expressed his appreciation for the decision of the Constitutional Court because journalists are no longer easily criminalized in bringing their demands in criminal and civil cases, journalists are more free and free to work in carrying out their journalistic profession, concluded Herry, a well-known advocate and also the Chairman of the DPC PERADI Oelamasi, Kupang Regency, Province. NTT.***(MB/JMW)

# Journalistic Work Threatened, MK Decides to Close Criminal Procedures and Lawsuits