<![CDATA[Indonesia’s new Criminal Code entered into force together with the 2026 Penal Adjustment Law, materially altering the architecture of religious offences. Article 300 now directs hostility, hatred, and incitement provisions toward persons or groups on religious or belief grounds rather than religion as an abstract object. Yet the reform remains internally uneven: the first two limbs of Article 300 do not expressly require advocacy, a specific intent to incite, or a demonstrable risk of harm; Article 301 extends the offence to public dissemination, including through information technology; and the transitional replacement of the former Electronic Information and Transactions Law hate speech provision points to Article 243, even though the amended Article 243 no longer includes religion or belief. Using a doctrinal-reconstructive method, this article maps that legal succession, tests the new provisions against the 1945 Constitution, Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, the ICCPR, and the Rabat Plan of Action, and translates Ius Integrum Nusantara from an emerging agrarian reform vocabulary into a bounded method of criminal-law reconstruction. Its contribution is an operational six gate test-target, advocacy, intent, context and capacity, real risk, and proportionality supported by a model statutory clause and worked applications. The article concludes that the reform has redirected the statutory object of protection toward religiously identified persons and groups, but that Articles 300 and 301 still require a uniform incitement threshold, express safeguards for protected expression, and criminal law as ultima ratio. ]]>
