Jakarta. The Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday issued a pair of landmark rulings that narrowed the scope of the country’s controversial Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), reinforcing protections for freedom of speech and clarifying conditions under which digital misinformation can be prosecuted.

In the first ruling, the court decided that defamation charges under Article 27A of the revised UU ITE cannot be used to criminalize criticism against government institutions or groups with specific identities. The decision, read by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, said that public bodies cannot be treated as victims under the same provisions designed to protect personal honor and reputation.

“The phrase ‘other persons’ in Article 27A is conditionally unconstitutional unless interpreted as referring solely to individuals,” the Court ruled in Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024. The accompanying criminal sanction under Article 45(4) was also deemed inapplicable to institutions and groups.

The Court argued that allowing non-individuals to file defamation complaints would undermine democratic values and stifle public criticism. It stated that constructive criticism of government policies is essential in a democratic society and must be protected under the right to freedom of expression.

“Restricting this right would erode public oversight and open the door to abuse of power,” said Justice Arief Hidayat.

The case was brought forward by Daniel Frits Tangkilisan, an environmental activist who was previously convicted for criticizing shrimp farm operations in Karimunjawa, Central Java. His appeal showed the vague interpretation of who qualifies as a “victim” under the law.

The ruling aligns the UU ITE with Article 433 of the 2023 Criminal Code, which also excludes institutions from being considered victims in defamation cases. Moreover, Article 45(7) of the UU ITE already provides that criticism made in the public interest or in self-defense cannot be prosecuted.

In a separate but related ruling, the Constitutional Court also redefined the legal meaning of "public unrest" in cases involving the spread of hoaxes or fake news online. In Decision No. 115/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court said the term "unrest" as used in Article 28(3) and Article 45A(3) of UU ITE must be interpreted strictly as unrest occurring in the physical public space, not in digital or cyberspace.

“Public unrest must refer to disturbances to public order in the physical realm, not digital platforms,” said Justice Arsul Sani in the ruling.

The ruling clarifies that Article 28(3), which punishes anyone who knowingly spreads false information that causes unrest, is only applicable if the unrest leads to actual, physical disruption in society. Violations carry penalties of up to six years in prison and fines of up to Rp 1 billion.

The Court warned that without this clarification, law enforcement might abuse the law to target online criticism or debates that do not lead to real-world consequences.

The constitutional review was filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, a prosecutor and public policy activist who feared being criminalized for his outspoken criticism of government policies.