In 2025, Indonesia continues to grapple with challenges to freedom of speech, as inconsistencies in the enforcement of defamation laws. Alongside this issue, the proliferation of digital platforms has contributed to the ongoing difficulty in differentiating between expressing personal views and violating defamation laws. Numerous individuals have faced legal consequences for what they perceive as personal viewpoints, sparking public debate over the reach of Indonesia’s defamation laws. This raises an important legal question: When does an opinion cross the line into defamation?
To understand the legal framework governing this issue, it is essential to first examine Article 310 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (“KUHP”), which serves as the cornerstone of defamation regulation in Indonesia.
Article 310 of the KUHP defines defamation as an attack on someone’s honor by making accusations intended to be known by the public. This law recognizes two different types of defamation. The first one is slander, which refers to spoken accusations that intentionally damage another person’s reputation. The second one is libel, which includes accusations made through written words, images, or any publicly displayed content.
In practice, the law enforcement frequently applies Article 27A of Law Number 1 of 2024 amending Law Number 11 Year 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (“ITE Law”)—alongside Article 310 of the KUHP when cases occur on digital platforms. The focus of this regulation lies in the act of attacking the honor or good name of another person carried out based on information technology, especially when shared on social media. The application of the Defamation Law then raises further questions regarding the extent of the distinction between having an opinion and expressing facts and attacking the honor or good name of another person (defamation). Several legal materials can serve as a guide in making the distinction between the two.
A. Case Law
The definition of acts that attack a person’s honor or reputation has evolved through various court rulings. Through relevant jurisprudence and decisions, courts have provided interpretations regarding the limits, elements, and legal application of defamation and insult provisions. From these developments, several key principles have emerged as guidelines for determining whether an act constitutes defamation. For example, in Supreme Court Decision No. 5712 K/Pid.Sus/2024 jo. Decision No. 202/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.JKT.Tim and Decision No. 1293 K/Pid.Sus/2015 jo. 351/Pid/2014/PT.BDG jo. 211/Pid.B/2014/PN.Bks, the Supreme Court held that stating the truth or facts does not constitute defamation.
In addition, based on the opinion of the Constitutional Court as stated in Decision Number 14/PUU-VI/2008, which includes a judicial review of, among others, Article 310 KUHP, a clear distinction is drawn between defamation and opinion or criticism. Opinion, including criticism directed at an individual, constitutes an integral part of the right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed within a democratic system. However, such freedom is not absolute and is subject to limitations when it transforms into conduct that personally attacks another individual. Defamation is regarded as a criminal offense, as it involves deliberate action accompanied by malicious intent (criminal intent) to harm the dignity or reputation of another person. The Court emphasized that when criticism is conveyed in good faith, it is protected under the law. Conversely, if such criticism is accompanied by defamatory content, it is the defamatory element—not the criticism itself—that is subject to criminal sanction. Therefore, the principal distinction lies in the presence of intent and the content constituting a personal attack on an individual’s honor and dignity.
B. Joint Decree of the Minister of Communication and Informatics of the Republic of Indonesia, the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Chief of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia on Guidelines for the Implementation of Certain Provisions in Law of Electronic Information and Transactions
In response to these challenges, the Joint Decree of the Minister of Communication and Informatics, the Attorney General, and the Chief of the National Police (“Joint Decree on the ITE Law”) was issued to provide guidelines for the implementation of certain provisions in the ITE Law. Under this joint decree, several principles were outlined to guide law enforcement in defamation cases. One of the critical aspects was ensuring that statements classified as defamation contained false factual allegations rather than expressions of criticism, satire, or personal views
In addition, the Joint Decree on the ITE Law states that for a statement to be classified as criminal defamation under Article 27, paragraph three of the previous law, it must involve the deliberate and unauthorized dissemination of electronic content that falsely accuses an individual. The decree links this offense to the principles set out in the KUHP, particularly Articles 310 and 311, which establish that defamation occurs when false allegations are made with the intent to damage a person’s reputation. This interpretation ensures that only communications with a clear intent to cause harm through the spreading of untrue claims trigger legal sanctions. The Joint Decree on the ITE Law emphasizes that expressions based on a thoughtful evaluation of facts or genuine opinions are categorically excluded from criminal defamation. The guidelines underscore that as long as the content reflects an honest assessment or critical commentary grounded in verifiable information, it does not meet the threshold of defamation. This important distinction protects freedom of expression and ensures that individuals offering criticism or analysis are not unduly subjected to prosecution under the ITE Law.
Finally, the Joint Decree on the ITE Law instructs law enforcement officials to adopt a balanced approach when reviewing defamation cases. In every instance, the factual accuracy of the content must be carefully verified before any determination is made regarding criminal liability. This process involves confirming that the alleged falsehoods were disseminated deliberately to cause harm rather than being expressions of personal opinion or factual reporting. By drawing this clear line, the decree ensures that legal action is reserved solely for cases of deliberate misrepresentation that damage an individual’s reputation while safeguarding the fundamental right to free expression.
C. Conclusion
In light of the above, law enforcement should be more selective in following up on defamation reports by first determining whether the reported statement constitutes a fact, an opinion, or truly meets the elements of insult and defamation as regulated in the KUHP and the ITE Law. With the existence of the Joint Decree on the ITE Law and court rulings that have provided clearer boundaries, law enforcement officials must avoid excessive criminalization of legitimate expressions. A more proportional approach in line with applicable laws and regulations will prevent the misuse of defamation provisions and maintain a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of individual honor. Also, the Indonesian law enforcement should more prioritize the application of restorative justice in cases on defamation.
Written by: R. Bayu Perdana, Anak Agung Istri Widya Prabarani, Kadek Indra Dewan Tara, Allison Dara, Afiyah Arinda Putri dan Nadira Karisma
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.
Image by 愚木混株 Cdd20 from Pixabay
Partner
Awesome