The Constitutional Position of the President in Restorative Justice Mechanisms for Presidential Defamation Offenses

Abstract

The criminalization of presidential defamation under Indonesian law raises constitutional concerns regarding the balance between protecting the dignity of the Head of State and safeguarding freedom of expression. The enactment of the new Indonesian Criminal Code reintroduces presidential defamation as a complaint-based offense, creating opportunities for restorative justice while simultaneously raising questions about the constitutional role of the President in such proceedings. This study examines the constitutional position of the President within restorative justice mechanisms for presidential defamation offenses and evaluates its implications for legal certainty, equality before the law, and the protection of constitutional rights. Employing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and constitutional approaches, the study analyses relevant constitutional provisions, criminal legislation, judicial decisions, and legal doctrines. The findings demonstrate that the President, although acting as the complainant, remains a constitutional office holder whose legal standing differs from that of an ordinary individual, thereby requiring restorative justice to be implemented in a manner consistent with constitutional principles, public accountability, and the public interest. The study concludes that restorative justice offers a balanced approach to resolving presidential defamation cases, provided that its application is guided by clear legal standards that preserve constitutional values, prevent political misuse, and ensure equal protection of the law.