The Constitutional Court (MK) partially granted a petition filed by the Indonesian Legal Journalists Association (Iwakum), resulting in new interpretation of Article 8 of the Press Law, during a verdict hearing led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Monday (Jan. 19). MK stated that Article 8 of the Press Law and its elucidation affirm press freedom as a manifestation of human rights and as a means to prosper democratic society and state. Legal protection for journalists is not solely for journalists, but rather to safeguard the broader public’s right to obtain valid, accurate, and balanced information.
Professor of Journalism and Communication at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Gadjah Mada (Fisipol UGM), Professor Ana Nadhya Abrar, agreed with MK’s decision. However, he expressed surprise, noting that such principles have in fact long been practiced by MK, and that the current ruling merely reiterates existing approaches.
“So, MK’s decision is essentially a revitalization of practices that have been in place for a long time,” he said at the UGM campus on Friday (Jan. 23).
Professor Abrar explained that Article 8 of Press Law No. 40 of 1999 states, “In carrying out their profession, journalists are entitled to legal protection.”
MK ruled that the phrase “legal protection” would be unconstitutional if it were interpreted to include the direct application of criminal and/or civil sanctions against journalists in the lawful exercise of their profession, without first exhausting mechanisms such as the right of reply, the right of correction, and alleged violations of the journalistic code of ethics through consideration and dispute resolution efforts by the Press Council as part of a restorative justice approach.
According to him, these provisions have in fact already been accommodated in the Press Law No. 40 of 1999, particularly in Article 5 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). Therefore, he argued, there is nothing fundamentally new in MK’s ruling.
The decision merely reiterates what the press must do when disputes arise with parties being reported on, as this law has long served as the guiding framework for journalists in carrying out their duties.
Regarding the Press Council’s application of restorative justice, Professor Abrar noted that, when no agreement is reached, the mechanism needs to be clarified to avoid multiple interpretations. Otherwise, he said, restorative justice could potentially be used to divert attention from the core issue.
“The reason is that journalistic work does not recognize compromise. This means that journalists either accept all social objectives and carry out all technical activities to achieve those objectives as their first choice, or they do not carry them out at all,” he explained.
Professor Abrar further stated that journalists are, after all, ordinary human beings in social life. Journalists may present conclusions they have drawn and test every reality they believe in, and it is at this point that they open the door to correction.
From this principle emerged the right of correction, which is stipulated in Article 5 paragraph (3) of the Press Law No. 40 of 1999, stating that the press is obliged to serve the right of correction.
“In this way, journalists are actually striving not to act arbitrarily. In other words, journalists do not wish to be authoritarian like dictators,” he explained.
Professor Abrar emphasized that every journalist, regardless of how small their contribution may be, produces meaningful work. Thus, journalistic activities can be described as intellectually driven endeavors in which journalists engage with society with a sense of pride in their dignity as intellectual actors.
“In this position, journalists should receive protection. As for who should provide that protection, it is, of course, the government,” he said.
He further noted that journalists engage in continuous interaction with both society and the government. Within this process, there is an exchange of ideas, mutual influence, and acceptance or rejection on an equal footing. The imposition of a particular stance by one party, he argued, will not result in ideal news coverage.
“This is what Press Law No. 40 of 1999 seeks to prevent. In other words, the law has already avoided coercion by any one party. This can be seen in Article 6,” he concluded.
Author: Agung Nugroho
Post-editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Illustration: ERA.ID