Abstract

The study investigates the persistent tension between protection of reputation and freedom of expression within Indonesia’s defamation laws. Despite constitutional guarantees under Articles 28E and 28F of the 1945 Constitution, the continued criminalization of defamation particularly under the Criminal Code, Civil Code, and Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law of 2008 has raised serious concerns about misuse, vagueness, and disproportionate sanctions that threaten democratic discourse and press freedom. The primary aim of this research is to critically appraise Indonesia’s defamation framework through a justice-based lens, assessing whether current laws align with principles of fairness, proportionality, and human rights. The study also seeks to propose reforms that harmonize the protection of individual dignity with the constitutional right to free expression, both offline and online. Using a qualitative normative legal method, the study analyzes statutory provisions, court decisions, and academic literature to evaluate how defamation laws function in theory and practice. The research draws on a doctrinal and comparative approach, examining Indonesia’s legal instruments alongside international human rights norms and best practices. The findings indicate that Indonesia’s defamation regime remains punitive and outdated, heavily influenced by colonial-era legal traditions. The broad and ambiguous wording of defamation and insult provisions under the Criminal Code and ITE Law enables selective enforcement and potential political misuse. These structural weaknesses have produced a chilling effect on media freedom, public criticism, and civic engagement, revealing a legal imbalance between state control and citizen rights. The study concludes that Indonesia’s defamation framework requires comprehensive reform to ensure justice-based compliance. Recommended measures include decriminalizing defamation, clarifying statutory definitions, limiting pretrial detention for speech-related offenses, and strengthening procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.

Keywords