The Corruption Court's ruling to acquit JakTV News Director Tian Bahtiar of obstruction of justice charges in three corruption cases is a win for freedom of expression. This ruling proves that dissenting perspectives that spark opposing opinions fall outside the scope of criminalization.
The panel of judges delivered its decision during the proceedings for corruption in the crude palm oil (CPO), tin, and sugar industries last Tuesday and Wednesday. Prosecutors had demanded an eight-year imprisonment sentence and a Rp600 million fine, or an additional 150 days in prison, for Tian. They accused him of sabotaging the investigations and prosecutions by the Attorney General's Office (AGO) by deploying "media operations" to build unfavorable narratives against them.
The judges correctly posited that, in essence, negative reporting is a matter of perception and viewpoints, both of which are recognized components of a functioning democracy. Furthermore, news reports carrying a negative tone are fundamentally different from false information or hoaxes.
We must also commend the court for citing Constitutional Court Decision No. 145/PUU-XXIII/2025, issued on March 2, 2026. This demonstrates how the panel upheld press freedom as a constitutional right that must be protected.
The Press Council had actually declared Tian's work as a non-journalistic product due to its heavy marketing elements. It was also clear that JakTV's broadcasts related to these cases were the result of a Rp478.5 million collaboration between the media company's business team and its clients. Basically, these were advertisements wrapped in journalistic language.
Nevertheless, Tian's work falls within the media industry ecosystem. It cannot be arbitrarily subjected to criminal charges. Moreover, the AGO had been wrong from the get-go when they bypassed the ethical assessment processes, such as coordinating with the Press Council, and opted to go straight for the legal route, criminalizing Tian. This oversight carries the risk of affirming the criminalization of freedom of expression and press independence.
While content created for the purpose of cultivating negative opinions and perceptions is generally harmful, it does not warrant criminalization. Such work should only be met with public condemnation and social sanctions. In many ways, social sanctions are often more severe than criminal penalties because they do not have an expiration date, unlike a fixed prison sentence.
The Attorney General's Office and other law enforcement agencies should not feel obstructed by the formation of opposing opinions. If an opinion is deemed inaccurate, it should be countered with factual information, not intimidation or the criminal prosecution of its creator.
The tendency to settle disagreements through intimidation and criminalization is a dangerous practice. This is especially true when the law enforcement agency has flawed governance. In such an environment, the public could rightly assume that anyone who disagrees with the authorities could be imprisoned at any moment.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2092346/the-right-to-dissent-is-not-a-crim