Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal PERAHU (PENERANGAN HUKUM) : JURNAL ILMU HUKUM
Afifah Mayaningsih
UIN Syekh Wasil Kediri
Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Implikasi Yuridis Pembatasan Subjek Pelapor Dalam Delik Pencemaran Nama Baik Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 105/PUU-XXII/2024 Afifah Mayaningsih
PERAHU (PENERANGAN HUKUM) : JURNAL ILMU HUKUM Vol 14 No 1 (2026): PERAHU (PENERANGAN HUKUM) : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Kapuas

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51826/perahu.v14i1.1814

Abstract

The Constitutional Court Decision (MK) No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024 has introduced a fundamental change in the enforcement of criminal law concerning defamation offenses, particularly with regard to the subject authorized to file a complaint. Prior to this decision, reports of defamation offenses under the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE Law) could be submitted by third parties. However, through this ruling, the Constitutional Court affirmed that only direct victims possess legal standing to report defamation offenses. This study aims to examine the regulation of defamation offenses under the ITE Law before and after Constitutional Court Decision Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024, as well as to analyze its juridical implications for the enforcement of the ITE Law. This research employs normative legal research with a statutory approach and a historical approach. The findings indicate that following the Constitutional Court’s decision, the authority to file complaints in defamation cases under the ITE Law is strictly limited to individuals who are directly harmed. Furthermore, the decision implies the necessity for regulatory adjustments through a revision of the ITE Law by the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR), particularly to clarify provisions that have generated multiple interpretations, in order to ensure legal certainty and the protection of human rights.
Co-Authors