{"id":44537,"date":"2026-09-16T11:39:54","date_gmt":"2026-09-16T04:39:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/?p=44537"},"modified":"2026-09-16T11:39:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-16T04:39:54","slug":"lgs-fh-ugm-bersama-pandekha-dan-lsj-ajukan-amicus-curiae-ke-pn-surakarta-atas-kasus-kriminalisasi-aksi-solidaritas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/lgs-fh-ugm-bersama-pandekha-dan-lsj-ajukan-amicus-curiae-ke-pn-surakarta-atas-kasus-kriminalisasi-aksi-solidaritas\/","title":{"rendered":"LGS FH UGM, PANDEKHA, and LSJ Submit Amicus Curiae to Surakarta District Court in Case Concerning Criminalization of Solidarity Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Law, Gender, and Society Study Center of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada (LGS FH UGM), together with the Center for Democracy, Constitution, and Human Rights Studies (PANDEKHA FH UGM) and the Center for Law and Social Justice Studies (LSJ FH UGM), submitted a legal opinion as amicus curiae, or friends of the court, to the Surakarta District Court on Monday (9 March 2026). The legal opinion was submitted in Case Number 75\/SKRTA\/Eku.2\/12\/2025, in which three citizens\u2014Daffa Labidulloh Darmaji, Hanif Bagas Utama, and Bogi Setyo Bumo\u2014have been charged as defendants.<\/span><\/p>\n

The three defendants are accused of inciting a crowd by disseminating flyers calling for protest actions on social media ahead of a wave of mass demonstrations in late August 2025. In the thirteen-page document entitled \u201cCriminalization of Solidarity Actions as a Threat to Public Participation and Social Justice,\u201d the three study centers expressed concern over the narrowing of public participation and emphasized that law enforcement should not be carried out by disregarding the social realities surrounding a case.<\/span><\/p>\n

The amici emphasized that the legal opinion does not constitute an intervention in the independence of the Panel of Judges, but rather represents responsible academic participation intended to provide both doctrinal and sociological perspectives in the examination of the case. According to the amici, the case emerged from a social situation marked by public grief and anxiety following the death of Affan Kurniawan. This context, they argued, should therefore be assessed comprehensively by the court.<\/span><\/p>\n

At least five legal arguments are presented in the amicus curiae. First, the amici highlight the status of Articles 246 and 247 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code as material offenses. Referring to Constitutional Court Decision No. 7\/PUU-VII\/2009, the amici argue that the fundamental character of the offense of incitement has shifted from a formal offense to a material offense. Accordingly, a person may only be held criminally liable if the incitement actually produces a tangible consequence (resulting harm) in the form of the commission of a criminal offense.<\/span>resulting harm<\/span><\/i>) berupa terjadinya tindak pidana.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, the amici argue that the defendants\u2019 actions do not fulfill the elements of the two provisions because there is no clear causal relationship (causal verband) between the dissemination of the flyers and the unrest that occurred in Surakarta. Referring to the legal maxim causa proxima non remota inspicitur, the relevant consideration should be the proximate cause rather than a remote cause. The amici contend that the primary causes of the public movement were instead rooted in growing perceptions of injustice, repressive actions by law enforcement officers in the field, and public anger over the death of Affan Kurniawan.<\/p>\n

Third, from the perspective of mens rea, criminal liability must be examined based on the principle of culpability as affirmed in Article 36 of Law No. 1 of 2023. The sentencing guidelines under Article 53 of the same law also require judges to consider the perpetrator\u2019s motive, personal circumstances, and the degree of blameworthiness of the conduct. The amici refer to a precedent from the Central Jakarta District Court in the case involving Delpedro Marhaen Rismansyah and others, in which the Panel of Judges acquitted the defendants and considered their social media posts to be expressions of humanitarian solidarity rather than calls for violence.<\/p>\n

Fourth and fifth, the amicus curiae places the case within the framework of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. This right is guaranteed under Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while the expression of opinions in public is specifically regulated under Law No. 9 of 1998. The amici also refer to the General Comment on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Indonesia ratified through Law No. 12 of 2005, emphasizing that the protection of freedom of expression also extends to expressions that may be considered offensive. Restrictions on this right are only legitimate when they meet strict standards, are proportionate, and are based on a pressing need.<\/span><\/p>\n

In closing, the amici expressed two hopes. First, they hope that the Panel of Judges will acquit the defendants, whom they consider to have been exercising their constitutional rights. Second, they hope that the court will reaffirm its position not merely as the mouthpiece of the law (la bouche de la loi), but as a guardian of constitutionality that ensures every restriction of rights is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The decision in this case is expected not only to resolve the a quo matter, but also to establish a precedent for similar issues in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

The submission also contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions by strengthening access to justice, protecting freedom of expression and public participation, and promoting judicial processes that are transparent, accountable, and respectful of citizens\u2019 constitutional rights. The initiative is also relevant to SDG 10 on Reduced Inequalities, particularly by supporting the equal exercise of the right to express opinions and participate in public life without disproportionate legal restrictions. Through the submission of the amicus curiae, LGS FH UGM, together with PANDEKHA FH UGM and LSJ FH UGM, seeks to strengthen the role of academic perspectives in advancing a legal system that safeguards public participation, justice, and human rights.<\/p>\n

Author: Zamrotul Miftakhus Laili\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pusat Kajian Law, Gender, and Society Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada (LGS FH UGM) bersama Pusat Kajian Demokrasi, Konstitusi, dan Hak Asasi Manusia (PANDEKHA FH UGM) dan Pusat Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan Sosial (LSJ FH UGM) mengajukan pendapat hukum sebagai sahabat pengadilan atau amicus curiae kepada Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta, Senin (9\/3\/2026). Pendapat hukum tersebut diajukan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":44538,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,218,214],"tags":[240,241,232,228,220],"class_list":["post-44537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-berita","category-berita-sdgs","category-kabar-lgs","tag-fakultas-hukum-ugm","tag-law-ugm","tag-sdg-10-berkurangnya-kesenjangan","tag-sdg-16-perdamaian-keadilan-dan-kelembagaan-yang-tangguh","tag-sdgs"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44537"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44537\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44539,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44537\/revisions\/44539"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}