Constitutional Court Abolishes Article on Spreading False News: Is the Threat to Freedom of Expression Resolved?

The Ambiguity of Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946 Has the Potential to be Misused

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, in his consideration at the Constitutional Court hearing on March 21, 2024, highlighted the ambiguity in the norms of Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946. The unclear definition of "false news or notification", "disorder or rioting", and "uncertain or excessive news" has the potential to be misused to ensnare individuals who convey criticism of the government.

Arsul explained that the difficulty in finding measures and parameters of "truth" about information can open opportunities for subjective interpretation by law enforcement. It is feared that this could become a tool to silence critical voices and restrict freedom of expression of the public.

The ambiguity of the norms in the article also has the potential to create doubt and fear for the public to express their opinions. This can hinder public participation in the process of democracy and national development.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court needs to carry out contextual and evolutionary interpretation of these norms so that they do not conflict with the constitution and the development of the times.

The Threat of Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946 to the Right to Creativity and Democracy

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, in his consideration at the Constitutional Court hearing on March 21, 2024, affirmed that Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946 have the potential to limit the right of citizens to be creative in thinking and finding the truth. The unclear definition and absolute nature of the article can hinder public participation in democracy.

Arsul emphasized that democracy requires opinions and information from citizens to produce the right decisions. The state should not silence the voices of the people under the pretext of upholding the truth.

The state, according to Arsul, must provide space for its citizens to express themselves freely. This is in line with the principles of democracy that uphold human rights.

The Constitutional Court also assessed that Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946 are elastic clauses that do not have clear benchmarks. In this digital era, people easily access information without knowing the truth. This makes the article increasingly irrelevant and potentially misused.

The Ambiguity of the Element of "Rioting" in Article 14 of Law 1/1946 Has the Potential to be Misused

The Constitutional Court (MK), in its consideration, assessed that the element of "disorder" or "rioting" in Article 14 of Law 1/1946 contains unclear measures and parameters that become the limits of danger. The use of the word "rioting" has the potential to cause multiple interpretations because between commotion, riots, and disturbances have different gradations, as well as the consequences caused.

This ambiguity is feared to open opportunities for subjective interpretation by law enforcement, potentially being misused to ensnare individuals who express criticism of the government. This could silence critical voices and restrict the public's freedom of expression.

In addition to removing the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946, the Constitutional Court also amended the provisions of Article 310 of Law 1/2023 concerning the Criminal Code by adding the phrase "orally".

This change is intended to:

• Clarify the definition of defamation.
• Limit the scope of the article so that it is not misused to ensnare individuals who express criticism orally.

This Constitutional Court decision is a step forward in:

• Protecting human rights and freedom of expression in Indonesia.
• Preventing the misuse of elastic clauses to silence critical voices.
• Realizing a healthy and participatory democracy.