Legal Certainty and the Chilling Effect of Complaint-Based Insult Offenses on Digital Public Participation in Indonesia

Abstract

This study examines how the shift toward a complaint-based offense for insulting state institutions, introduced under Law Number 1 of 2023, functions in practice, with particular attention to questions of legal certainty and the risk of a chilling effect on digital public participation. Much of the existing literature on this issue relies heavily on a juridical-normative approach, which tends to fall short in explaining the frequent mismatch between the law as written and the law as enforced. To address this gap, the study adopts a doctrinal legal research design, supplemented by a qualitative case and document analysis, examining decided cases from 2021-2026 alongside relevant statutory and secondary legal sources. The analysis focuses on how ambiguous provisions in the insult offense articles are interpreted and applied, particularly the boundary between what constitutes an insult and what constitutes legitimate criticism, and how concepts such as "public interest" and "self-defense" are treated in the reviewed cases. The findings indicate that reclassifying the offense as complaint-based has not, by itself, resolved the underlying legal uncertainty. Ambiguous norms and inconsistent investigative procedures continue to allow for differing interpretations across cases, which in turn creates conditions conducive to a chilling effect, potentially discouraging individuals from expressing themselves freely in digital spaces. This study contributes to closing a methodological gap in the existing literature by connecting "law in books" with "law in action" through a systematic case-based analysis, offering interpretative parameters that distinguish legitimate criticism from unlawful insult under the still-ambiguous provisions of the current insult offense regime.