Implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 on Hoax Law Enforcement in Indonesia in Relation to Article 263 of Law Number 1 of 2023
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15575/jis.v6i3.57195Keywords:
constitutional court, hoaxes, lex certa, mens rea, national criminal codeAbstract
Constitutional Court Decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 declared Articles 14 and 15 of Law Number 1 of 1946 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and legally non-binding, creating a fundamental legal vacuum (rechtsvacuum) in hoax law enforcement in Indonesia. This normative juridical research, employing statutory and case approaches, analyzes the applicability of Article 263 of the National Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023) as a replacement norm and the multidimensional implications of the Decision on law enforcement. Theoretical frameworks include the Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) doctrine of Julius Stahl and A.V. Dicey, Gustav Radbruch's Legal Certainty Theory (Rechtssicherheit, Gerechtigkeit, Zweckmäßigkeit), Legal Interpretation Theory (grammatical, systematic, teleological, and constitutional methods), Lawrence M. Friedman's Legal System Theory, and Soerjono Soekanto's five law enforcement factors. The research finds that Article 263 substantially satisfies the lex certa standard required by the Court by explicitly requiring mens rea elements—dolus ("knowingly") and culpa ("reasonably suspected")—along with a tangible harm element of "social unrest," thereby overcoming the three unconstitutional characteristics of the invalidated norm: definitional vagueness, susceptibility to multiple interpretations, and the absence of explicit mens rea. The Decision carries implications across three dimensions: (1) legal substance—elimination of vague "rubber article" norms; (2) legal structure—a paradigm shift from total enforcement to selective full enforcement requiring proof of mens rea; and (3) legal culture—a demand for transformation from forward culture to verification culture. This research recommends drafting implementing regulations to operationally define "social unrest," synchronizing the Court's constitutional interpretation into technical law enforcement guidelines, and strengthening non-criminal mechanisms inspired by Germany's NetzDG as complementary approaches.
References
Alexy, R. (2002). A Theory of Constitutional Rights (J. Rivers (trans.)). Oxford University Press.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2009). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Tata Negara [Introduction to Constitutional Law]. Rajawali Press.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2012). Gagasan Negara Hukum Indonesia [The Idea of the Indonesian Rule of Law State]. Konstitusi Press.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Konstitusi dan Hukum dalam Perspektif Ketatanegaraan. Rajawali Pers.
Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum. (2019). Laporan Pengawasan Siber dan Penanganan Pelanggaran Konten Disinformasi Pemilu 2019.
Barendt, E. (2005). Freedom of Speech (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2023). Decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023. https://doi.org/[in indonesian]
Darmawan, A., & Rizal, M. (2024). Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 78/PUU-XXI/2023 dalam Perspektif Siyasah Dusturiyah. International Journal of Constitutional Law and Islamic Jurisprudence, 8(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/constitutional-siyasah
Deanova, C. (2024). Internal Inconsistencies in Constitutional Court Decisions: A Critical Review of Decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023. International Journal of Law and Legal Studies, 12(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/ijlls.2024.12
Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). London: Macmillan, 247, 269.
Friedman, L. M. (1975). Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.
He, D. (2020). Governing Hate Content Online: How the Rechtsstaat Shaped the Policy Discourse on the NetzDG in Germany. International Journal of Communication, 14, 3312–3330.
Herdiansah, A. G. (2019). Polarisasi Masyarakat Pasca Pemilu 2019: Tinjauan Sosiologi Politik [Social Polarization after the 2019 General Election: A Political Sociology Review]. Jurnal Politika, 10(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/[in indonesian]
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119.
IRAC Committee. (2024). Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing (18th ed.). Foundation Press.
Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure Theory of Law (M. Knight (trans.)). University of California Press.
Marzuki, P. M. (2021a). Penelitian Hukum (Revisi). Kencana.
Marzuki, P. M. (2021b). Penelitian Hukum [Legal Research] (Revised Edition). Kencana.
Muhamad, R. (2024). Mapping the Five-Year Trajectory of Digital Misinformation in Indonesia (2018–2023). Global Media and Communication Journal, 20(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/gmcj.2024.33
Muslih, M. (2017). Negara Hukum Indonesia dalam Perspektif Teori Hukum Gustav Radbruch [The Indonesian Rule of Law State in the Perspective of Gustav Radbruch’s Legal Theory]. Legalitas: Jurnal Hukum, 4(1), 130–158. https://doi.org/[in indonesian]
Pers, L. B. H. (2023). Laporan Situasi Kebebasan Pers Indonesia 2016--2023: Kriminalisasi Jurnalis dan Ekspresi Digital [Indonesian Press Freedom Situation Report 2016--2023: Criminalization of Journalists and Digital Expression].
Prasetyo, E. (2023). Constitutionality Standards of Criminal Norms in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression. Journal of Digital Law and Policy, 4(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.22146/jdlp.2023.78
Radbruch, G. (2006). Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11.
Santos, R., Cazzamatta, R., & Napolitano, C. J. (2025). Holding Platforms Accountable in the Fight Against Misinformation: A Cross-National Analysis of State-Established Content Moderation Regulations. International Communication Gazette, 87(8), 1042–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485241302890 [in indonesian]
Santoso, B., & Kurniawan, D. (2024). Efektivitas Penegakan Hukum Pidana Siber Pasca Reformasi UU ITE [Effectiveness of Cybercrime Law Enforcement after ITE Law Reform]. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 31(2), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol31.iss2.art5 [in indonesian]
Smits, J. M. (2012). The Mind and Method of the Legal Academic. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Smits, J. M. (2020). Advanced Introduction to Legal Research Methods. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Soekanto, S. (2010). Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penegakan Hukum [Factors Influencing Law Enforcement]. Rajawali Press.
Teo, K. X. (2021). Civil Society Responses to Singapore’s Online “Fake News” Law. International Journal of Communication, 15, 2980–2999.
Wibowo, D. P. (2025). Akibat Hukum bagi Pelaku Penyebaran Informasi Palsu (Hoaks) Berdasarkan UU ITE [Legal Consequences for Perpetrators of False Information (Hoax) Dissemination under the ITE Law]. Lex Laguens: Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan, 3(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/[in indonesian]
Zweigert, K. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law. Clarendon Pre-Ss.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Reyraya Respati Paramudhita
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).