<![CDATA[This research aims to examine in depth the application of the principle of proportionality in the court decision while exploring the extent to which selective law enforcement is used as a tool to silence criticism. This study employs a normative-juridical approach with a case study method on court documents, legislation, and media discourse analysis to identify law enforcement patterns in the context of digital freedom of expression. The findings indicate that while the Panel of Judges attempted to balance the protection of the medical institution's dignity with public interest, there are still indications of disproportionate sentencing relative to the impact of the actions. Furthermore, the construction of legal arguments, institutional responses, and the political atmosphere of the pandemic reveal a tendency toward legal politicization and selective enforcement that narrows the space for public criticism. This research emphasizes the urgency of penal policy reform through the revision of ambiguous norms in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), the strengthening of proportionality parameters in criminal rulings, and the formulation of clearer boundaries between social criticism and attacks on individual or institutional dignity. The implications of this research are not only conceptual and theoretical but also advocative encouraging democratic legal governance, protecting freedom of expression, and establishing state accountability mechanisms in managing critical discourse in the digital space, thereby enhancing the understanding of freedom of expression.]]>
