The Limits of Criticism of the Government Under Articles 240 and 241 of Law No. 1 of 2023: Balancing the Protection of State Authority and Civil Liberties
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wslhr.v4i03.3000Keywords:
Government Criticism, Freedom of Expression, State Authority, Civil Liberties, Indonesian Criminal CodeAbstract
This study examines the legal limits of criticism directed at the government under Articles 240 and 241 of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code. The central issue concerns the balance between protecting the authority and institutional integrity of the state and safeguarding freedom of expression as a fundamental civil liberty. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, constitutional, case, comparative, and human-rights approaches. The analysis focuses on the formulation of the offences, the distinction between criticism and insult, the complaint-based nature of prosecution, criminal responsibility for digital dissemination, and the application of the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and public interest. The findings indicate that Articles 240 and 241 pursue a legitimate objective insofar as they protect the effective functioning of government and state institutions from serious, malicious, and unlawful attacks. However, the broad and evaluative meaning of terms such as insult, honour, and institutional image creates risks of legal uncertainty, selective enforcement, and a chilling effect on democratic participation. The study finds that criticism should not be criminalized merely because it is harsh, offensive, satirical, emotionally expressed, or damaging to the reputation of a public institution. Criminal liability should arise only where the prosecution proves an objectively unlawful attack, the required intent, the absence of a dominant public-interest purpose, serious and legally cognisable harm, and the inadequacy of less restrictive remedies. Article 241 requires additional safeguards because the dissemination of digital content may occur for purposes of journalism, education, criticism, documentation, or public discussion. The study concludes that Articles 240 and 241 must be interpreted restrictively, with a strong presumption in favour of political expression, to ensure that the protection of state authority does not undermine constitutional democracy and civil liberties.
References
[1] Abdul Rahman, Budi Sastra Panjaitan, and Arifuddin Muda Harahap, “Tinjauan Kritis terhadap Ketentuan Tindak Pidana Penghinaan Presiden dalam Kuhp Baru dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Berpendapat,” J. Ris. Rumpun Ilmu Sos. Polit. dan Hum., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 653–667, 2025, doi: 10.55606/jurrish.v4i3.5976.
[2] A. Royhan, “Freedom of Expression In Indonesia’s Democratic System: A Fiqh Siyasah Analysis From The Perspective of Maqāṣid Asy-Syarī’ah,” Siyasah Wa Qanuniyah J. Ilm. Ma’had Aly Raudhatul Ma’arif, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 152–173, 2025.
[3] P. P. P. P. dalam Negara and H. Demokratis, “The Problematic Nature of Presidential Defamation Provisions in a Democratic Rule-of-Law State,” 2025.
[4] D. A. D. G. Tawang and R. Purwaningsih, “Criminal Legal Policy On Insults Against The President And Vice President Post Constitutional Court Ruling Number 7/Puu-Xxi/2023,” Pena Justisia Media Komun. dan Kaji. Huk., vol. 22, 2023.
[5] M. Fadhil, “Criminal Law Reform in Indonesia: The Perspective on Freedom of Expression and Opinion,” Al-Jinayah J. Huk. Pidana Islam, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 128–146, 2023.
[6] R. A. Firdaus, M. R. Ridho, and F. Q. P. Rahayu, “Insult To The Government: Legal And Maqa̅sid Al-Syari̅’ah Analysis Of Freedom Of Expression,” AL-MANHAJ J. Huk. dan Pranata Sos. Islam, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 151–170, 2025.
[7] H. S. A. Pradana and M. I. D. Haq, “The Regulation of Articles on State Institutional Insults to The Right to Freedom of Expression in Indonesia: A Critical Review,” Mulawarman Law Rev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–31, 2023.
[8] T. Z. A. Yanis, A. Saleh, and A. M. Yanis, “The Unconstitutionality of the Offence of Insulting the Government in the 2023 Criminal Code: A Critical Review of Freedom of Expression,” As-Siyasi J. Const. Law, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 111–119, 2025.
[9] R. A. Agustina, A. Madjid, and S. Noedajasakti, “Freedom of Expression in Regulating Criminal Acts of Defamation Against the Government and State Institutions,” Traektoriâ Nauk. Path Sci., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1008–1018, 2023.
[10] C. Tuyau, “Satire and rights: legal challenges under the ECHR and the DSA,” J. Information, Commun. Ethics Soc., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197–215, 2026.
[11] A. Y. Bimoribowo and R. A. Azis, “Legal Safeguards for Government Criticism Expression on Social Media Platforms Under the 2016 Information and Electronic Transactions Law (Law No. 19/2016),” J. Law Econ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 93–103, 2025.
[12] J. A. Lascuraín Sánchez, “Todo a la vez: la limitación de la expresión y la desprotección del honor,” Rev. Jurídica Univ. Autónoma Madrid 36, II, 2017, pp. 119–134, 2017.
[13] M. Nasution and E. N. Sihombing, Ilmu Negara. Penerbit EnamMedia, 2020.
[14] H. Ardiansyah and S. Suhartono, “Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 105/PUU XXII/2024 Terhadap Keberlakuan Pasal 240 KUHP Dalam Konteks Negara Demokratis,” RIGGS J. Artif. Intell. Digit. Bus., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4173–4179, 2026.
[15] S. Wulandari, “Pasal Penghinaan Terhadap Pemerintah Dalam RKUHP 2022 Sebagai Indikasi Rezim Otoriter dan Mengancam Demokrasi,” J. Stud. Leg., vol. 3, no. 01, pp. 48–59, 2022.
[16] М. К. Кумышева, “Актуальные проблемы привлечения к уголовной ответственности за публичные действия, направленные на дискредитацию использования Вооруженных Сил Российской Федерации,” Образование и право, no. 7, pp. 274–279, 2022.
[17] R. Segev, “Freedom of Expression: Criticising Public Officials,” Amsterdam LF, vol. 2, p. 77, 2009.
[18] F. T. Khanza and M. A. Murti, “Potensi Pelanggaran Hak Kebebasan Berpendapat terhadap Delik Penghinaan Pemerintah dalam RKUHP,” J. Stud. Leg., vol. 3, no. 01, pp. 33–39, 2022.
[19] R. S. Pane and K. M. Siregar, “Dialektika Hukum Kebebasan Mengeluarkan Pendapat: Kritik vs Hinaan,” Al-Adl J. Huk., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2024.
[20] S. P. de Santana, “Calúnia contra a presidente da república: a tensão entre o exercício da liberdade de expressão e a tutela da honra/Slander against the president of the republic: the tension between freedom of expression and protection of honor,” Rev. Bras. Direito, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 42–52, 2016.
[21] F. J. Urbina, “A critique of proportionality,” Am. J. Juris., vol. 57, p. 49, 2012.
[22] V. C. Jackson, D. Sobreira, and J. F. Pontes, “Direito Constitucional na era da proporcionalidade,” Suprema Rev. Estud. Const., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 171–302, 2025.
[23] C. E. Cueva, “Ponderación y Proporcionalidad en el caso Kimel-Argentina de la Corte IDH,” Rev. Cálamo, no. 7, pp. 19–30, 2017.
[24] M. E. Itxaso, “El principio de proporcionalidad, la incitación al odio y la libertad de expresión en la reciente Jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: los Casos Stomakhin c. Rusia, Williamson c. Alemania y Pastörs c. Alemania,” Rev. Gen. Derecho Eur., no. 51, p. 2, 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dila Padila Nurhasanah, Yenik Pujowati, Rully Fildansyah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com