TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has partially granted a judicial review petition against the 1999 Press Law, ruling that journalists cannot be directly subjected to criminal or civil prosecution without first going through dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Press Law, including the Press Council.
The decision was read out during a hearing on petition No. 145/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court building in Central Jakarta on Monday, January 19, 2026.
“The Court grants the petition in part,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said while delivering the ruling.
The petition was filed by the Legal Aid Journalists Association (Iwakum), which challenged Article 8 of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press.
The article guarantees legal protection for journalists in carrying out their professional duties, but Iwakum argued that it lacked clarity and failed to explicitly prevent journalistic work from being brought directly into criminal or civil proceedings.
In its legal considerations, the Court emphasized that disputes involving journalistic work must first be resolved through mechanisms stipulated in the Press Law.
These include the right of reply, the right of correction, and mediation or adjudication by the Press Council.
The Court stressed that press disputes should prioritize restorative approaches rather than repressive legal measures.
The justices stated that journalistic work conducted in accordance with the journalistic code of ethics falls under the legal regime of the Press Law. As a result, criminal and civil sanctions should not be used excessively in resolving press-related disputes.
According to the Court, criminal or civil legal action may only be pursued in limited and exceptional circumstances.
“This can only be done after it has been proven that the mechanisms under the Press Law have not been followed,” constitutional justice Guntur Hamzah said during the hearing.
The Court further found that Article 8, as previously formulated, did not provide sufficient legal certainty for journalists.
This ambiguity, the justices said, created the risk that journalists could be prosecuted without first going through the safeguards established by the Press Law.
To address this, the Court issued a new constitutional interpretation of Article 8. It ruled that the phrase “legal protection” in the article is unconstitutional and has no binding legal force unless it is interpreted to mean that criminal and/or civil sanctions against journalists for their professional work may only be imposed after the right of reply, the right of correction, and Press Council procedures have been exhausted.
