The “Truth of Information” Defense in Offenses of Insulting The President And Vice President Under The Criminal Code (KUHP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29303/jkh.v11i1.364Keywords:
Shield, Insult, Accuracy of Information, Fear EffectAbstract
The substance of the offenses of insulting the president and vice president in the Criminal Code has indeed accommodated Constitutional Court Decision No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006. The change in the nature of the offense to an absolute complaint-based offense and the reduction of the criminal penalty from six years to three years constitute substantial modifications. However, in certain sections, the legislature has retained the old classification, in which the president and vice president are designated as exclusive subjects in the offenses of defamation and insult. This has structural implications that concern not only the issue of freedom of expression but also the burden of proving the “truth of the information,” which serves as a crucial safeguard for citizens in expressing criticism. This article aims to examine how the mechanism for proving “truth of information” is regulated in the Criminal Code. Using doctrinal legal research with a legislative, conceptual, and comparative approach, this article seeks to examine the “truth of information” defense mechanism in defamation offenses involving the President and Vice President as subjects. This article finds that, in both the old and new Criminal Codes, the “truth of information” defense in defamation offenses applies only to “any person” and “public officials”/“civil servants.” This fact demonstrates that criticism of the public and government officials, on the one hand, and criticism of the “president and vice president,” on the other, are afforded different levels of protection. Furthermore, this also has the potential to create a chilling effect and foster a high degree of apathy among citizens regarding the exercise of their freedom of expression.
References
Amiruddin, and Zainal Asikin. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. 1st ed. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2014.
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. “Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP),” 2015.
Brimblecombe, Fiona. “Searching for a Theoretical Basis of Defamation Law.” In Defamation in the Digital Age and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten.’ Bristol University Press, 2025.
Council of Europe. “Defamation and Freedom of Expression Selected Documents.” Strasbourg, 2003.
Descheemaeker, Eric. “‘Veritas Non Est Defamatio’? Truth as a Defence in the Law of Defamation.” Legal Studies 31, no. 1 (2011): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00191.x.
Faiz, Pan Mohammad. “Pencabutan Pasal Penghinaan Presiden: Presiden Tanpa Perisai?,” 2006. https://panmohamadfaiz.com/2006/12/07/pencabutan-pasal-penghinaan-presiden/.
Franklin, Marc A., and Daniel J. Bussel. “The Plaintiff’s Burden in Defamation: Awareness and Falsity.” William & Mary Law Review 25, no. 5 (1984).
Fuady, Munir. Metode Riset Hukum Pendekatan Teori Dan Konsep. 1st ed. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2018.
Hamzah, Andi. Delik-Delik Tertentu (Special Delicten) Di Dalam KUHP. Kedua. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
Hill, Debra A. “Defamation Law - The Private Plaintiff Must Establish a New Element to Make a Prima Facie Showing : Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps.” New Mexico Law Review 17, no. 2 (1987).
JUSTICE. “Defamation Bill.” London, 2012.
Kutner, Peter. “Truth in the Law of Defamation.” Rabels Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Privatrecht / The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 87, no. 2 (20223): 326–52.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 013-022/PUU-IV/2006,” 2006.
———. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 10/PUU-XXI/2023,” 2023. https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8912_1677567440.pdf.
———. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 143/ PUU-XXII/2024.” 2024, n.d. https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_11376_1735893180.pdf.
———. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 31/PUU-XIII/2015,” n.d.
———. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 7/PUU-XXI/2023,” 2023. https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8909_1677567286.pdf.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Edisi Revi. Jakarta: Kencana, 2016.
Milo, Dario. Defamation and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Mitchell, Paul. “The Foundations of Australian Defamation Law.” Sydney Law Review 28 (2006).
Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online in Europe : Module 7 Defamation and Reputation. Media Defence, 2024. www.mediadefence.org .
Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan. “5 Alasan Menolak Pasal Penghinaan Presiden Dimasukkan Kembali Ke Dalam RKUHP,” 2021. https://pshk.or.id/publikasi/siaran-pers/5-alasan-menolak-pasal-penghinaan-presiden-dimasukkan-kembali-ke-dalam-rkuhp/.
Ramdan, Ajie. “Kontroversi Delik Penghinaan Presiden/ Wakil Presiden Dalam RKUHP: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 103-022/PUU-IV/2006.” Jurna Yudisial 13, no. 2 (2020).
Rolph, David. “Truth as a Defence : Defamation , Contempt , Confidence , Privacy.” Journal of Media Law 7632 (2025): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2025.2567732.
State of Queensland 2026. “Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899,” n.d.
Veeder, Van Vechten. “The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation. I.” Columbia Law Review 3, no. 8 (1903). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1109121.
Widayati, Lidya Suryani. “Tindak Pidana Penghinaan Terhadap Presiden Dan Wakil Presiden: Perlukah Diatur Kembali Dalam KUHP?” Negara Hukum 8, no. 2 (2017).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahwan Ahwan, R. Fahmi Natigor Daulay
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
