Petition Testing Criminal Code Article 246: MK 202/PUU-XXIV/2026
The Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) decided case 202/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 16 July 2026, closing a petition for material review of Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (Law 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code). Two petitioners, Matluk and Chambali Safaludin, asked the Court to test Pasal 246 of that law against the 1945 Constitution. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter but never examined the challenged norm, because the petitioners neither filed the revision the panel had directed nor produced the exhibits that a review petition must carry.
Legal Reasoning
The Court opened with the question of authority. Under Pasal 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Pasal 10 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law 7 of 2020, and Pasal 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, the Court adjudicates at first and last instance, with final effect, the review of statutes against the Constitution. Since the petition concerned the constitutionality of a statutory norm — Pasal 246 of Law 1 of 2023 — the Court held that it was competent to hear the case.
The Court then recorded the procedural history. The petition was dated 22 May 2026, lodged online, and received on 6 June 2026, with Registration Deed 200/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/06/2026 issued on 8 June 2026. The filing checklist (Daftar Kelengkapan Pengajuan Permohonan Pemohon) showed that the petitioners had submitted the petition in .pdf and .doc/.docx form but had attached neither a list of exhibits nor any exhibits to support it.
A preliminary hearing was held on 18 June 2026 to hear the outline of the petition and to examine its completeness and clarity. Under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7 of 2025 on Procedure in Statutory Review Cases (PMK 7/2025), the panel advised the petitioners to revise and complete their petition by clarifying the Court's authority, their legal standing, the grounds of the petition (posita) and the relief sought (petitum), so that the document would follow the structure PMK 7/2025 prescribes. The panel also advised them to attach exhibits supporting their arguments. The petitioners were given fourteen days from 18 June 2026, meaning until 1 July 2026 at 12.00 WIB, to submit a signed revised petition together with exhibits conforming to the applicable rules.
That deadline passed without any revised petition, list of exhibits or exhibits being filed. The Court nonetheless convened a further preliminary hearing on 1 July 2026 at 15.31 WIB to examine the revision and to validate exhibits. The petitioners did not appear, although they had been properly summoned by Constitutional Court Letter 954.202/PUU/PAN.MK/PS/06/2026 dated 25 June 2026, and no exhibits were delivered to the Court.
Applying PMK 7/2025 to those facts, the Court cited Pasal 10 paragraph (4), under which a petition must be accompanied by exhibits and a list of exhibits supporting it, and Pasal 12 paragraph (3), under which an online filing must be accompanied by one set of exhibits delivered to the Court bearing the prescribed duty stamp. The petitioners had submitted no stamped exhibits with the original petition, filed no revision, and attached no supporting evidence thereafter. The Court noted that the absence of a revision would not by itself have barred it from considering the original petition. What settled the matter was the absence of valid exhibits despite the advice given in the preliminary hearing, which left the Court in no doubt that the petition failed the formal conditions for filing a statutory review. On that basis the Court declined to consider the petition further and set aside the remaining points as no longer relevant.
The Ruling
The Court concluded that it had authority to adjudicate the case, that the petition did not satisfy the formal filing requirements, and that the petition would not be considered further. The operative order states: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima" — the petitioners' petition is declared inadmissible. Pasal 246 of Law 1 of 2023 was not tested on its merits and stands unaffected by this decision.
The decision was taken in the Justices' Deliberation Meeting on Thursday, 2 July 2026 by nine constitutional justices — Suhartoyo as chair and member, with Saldi Isra, Adies Kadir, Liliek Prisbawono Adi, Enny Nurbaningsih, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, M. Guntur Hamzah, Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani as members — and pronounced in an open plenary session on Thursday, 16 July 2026, concluding at 14.02 WIB. The published decision records no dissenting opinion.
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.