Constitutional Review of the Criminal Penalty Adjustment Law: MK 26/PUU-XXIV/2026
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has decided case 26/PUU-XXIV/2026, a material review (pengujian materiil) of Law No. 1 of 2026 on Criminal Penalty Adjustment (Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Penyesuaian Pidana). The petition was filed by four individual petitioners: Rianjani Pajar Salusih as Petitioner I, Muhammad Amyusril Baramirdin as Petitioner II, Devina Futriyani as Petitioner III, and Bernita Matondang as Petitioner IV. The decision was handed down on 12 August 2026. The petitioners asked the Court to review the substance of the penalty-adjustment statute, which recalibrates criminal sanctions carried over into the codified criminal law framework.
Legal Reasoning
The reasoning recorded in the decision turns on the boundary between constitutional adjudication and legislative penal policy. The Court restated the position that the drafting of criminal sanction norms does not fall within its own authority. Following that ratio decidendi, a material review directed at criminalisation or decriminalisation, or at the reformulation of a criminal provision, addresses a matter reserved to the legislature as the body that forms statutes. The Court has applied the same boundary in related petitions this term, including its treatment of the Criminal Code provision at issue in Article 246 of the Criminal Code.
The decision file also carries the supplementary statement of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) delivered in response to questions put by the panel during the reading of the DPR's testimony. Justice Arsul Sani asked on what basis the DPR had not followed Constitutional Court Decision No. 4/PUU-X/2012, which annulled the state-emblem provisions in Article 57 letter d and Article 69 letter c of Law No. 24 of 2009. Justice Saldi Isra raised a connected question about the drafting debate over Article 237 letter c of the 2023 Criminal Code.
In answer, the DPR stated that although the earlier norm had been declared without binding legal force, the legislature considered it necessary to regulate the matter again in the 2023 Criminal Code. Its stated ground was that the state emblem is not merely a graphic symbol but a symbol of sovereignty and constitutional identity, as affirmed in Article 36A of the 1945 Constitution, and that its standing carries a dimension of honour and authority that must be protected. The DPR framed that protection as a consequence of the principles of a sovereign state and a state based on law. The same emblem question has come before the Court in the petitions recorded at the state-emblem offence in the Criminal Code and again at a parallel petition on the same provision.
The DPR supported its account with drafting history from the minutes of the Criminal Code drafting team of Commission III together with the Government, dated 26 June 2019. Those minutes record the Government explaining that Article 66 and Article 67 of Law No. 24 of 2009 had been consolidated, so that damaging, tearing, trampling, or burning the flag, and using it for advertising, all attracted imprisonment of up to five years. The drafters then separated the conduct according to intent: acts of damaging, trampling, or burning committed with the purpose of defiling, insulting, or degrading honour retained the heavier term, while commercial use of a damaged flag was set at a maximum of one year. Members of the panel of the drafting body pressed on definitional limits, asking how the offence would apply to garments or advertising that merely use the national colours, and urged that the elements of insulting and defiling be given clear weight in the formulation.
The Ruling
The Court rejected the petition of the petitioners in its entirety (menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk seluruhnya). The operative order leaves Law No. 1 of 2026 on Criminal Penalty Adjustment in force as enacted, without alteration to the provisions the petitioners had put in issue. No provision was declared conditionally constitutional and none was annulled, so the penalty settings under review continue to apply as written. The decision records no dissenting opinion.
The outcome places case 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 alongside the other criminal-law petitions decided by the Court in the 2026 term, in which the same authority boundary has been applied to questions of sentencing design and procedural threshold, including the filing requirements addressed in a review of the Criminal Procedure Code. For parties concerned with the calibration of penalties under the adjustment law, the route indicated by the reasoning is legislative revision rather than constitutional review.
Read the full decision in the official record.
Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.info.
Disclaimer
This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.
We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:
- Consult the official regulation text from government sources
- Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
- Verify all information independently
This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.