Penal Policy on Digital Defamation: A Comparative Study of Indonesian and Malaysian Law

Penal Policy on Digital Defamation: A Comparative Study of Indonesian and Malaysian Law

Hartanto , Syakdiah, Dwi Astuti, Daniil Alimpeev.

https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=CA_A13wAAAAJ&hl=en

The expansion of criminal defamation in digital space, particularly under Indonesia’s ITE Law, has raised concerns over disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression compared to neighboring jurisdictions such as Malaysia. This study aims to examine how Indonesia and Malaysia regulate criminal defamation and to identify key differences in their penal policies. The central issue is whether reliance on criminal law as a primary regulatory instrument leads to disproportionate interference with freedom of expression in both jurisdictions. This research employs a normative juridical method with a comparative law approach, analyzing Article 27A of Law No. 1 of 2024 (ITE Law), the new Indonesian Criminal Code, and Sections 499–502 of the Malaysian Penal Code, complemented by the Defamation Act 1957 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU -XXII/2024. The findings indicate three principal differences. Indonesia maintains a broader scope of criminalization with imprisonment as a dominant sanction, whereas

Malaysia tends to prioritize civil remedies. Malaysia also demonstrates more developed defenses grounded in public interest. At the same time, Indonesia’s approach remains less structured in distinguishing legitimate criticism from defamation and in translating principles of reputation protection into proportional legal standards. The study concludes that Indonesia’s current framework risks over -criminalization and requires reform to ensure proportionality. Criminal sanctions should be applied as

a last resort (ultimum remedium), supported by mandatory mediation and clearer normative boundari



--------------- https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/ijcls/article/view/34130  -----------------------

Conclusion 

A comparison of defamation regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia reveals two distinct legal paradigms. Indonesia’s reliance on criminal law to regulate digital defamation reflects a disproportionate penal orientation, particularly compared to Malaysia’s civil-based approach. This condition reflects a transitional phase in Indonesia’s criminal law system, in which the previous defamation provisions are being recodified into the new Criminal Code, particularly under Article 433. However, the Constitutional Co urt Decision No. 105/PUU -XXII/2024 has begun to narrow the scope of criminalization, highlighting the need for more proportionate measures. The absence of clear proportionality standards and mandatory mediation processes, however, still risks stifling legitimate

criticism, particularly against public officials. In contrast, Malaysia’s legal approach, as seen in the Defamation Act 1957, tends to prioritize civil remedies, using criminal provisions selectively for cases of malicious intent, thereby preserving more space for public discourse. This difference is partly influenced by legal tradition and regulatory orientation. Malaysia’s common law system tends to emphasize civil remedies, while Indonesia’s civil law system relies more on statutory regulation, with criminal law used more frequently. Differences in legal culture and state approaches to public

discourse also contribute to this pattern. Case studies from SAFENet and the Medan District Court show how excessive criminalization in Indonesia restricts freedom of expression in digital media. However, Malaysia’s compensation-focused model occasionally fails to protect victims when perpetrators lack the means to pay.

 

About the second research question, concerning the effectiveness of  law enforcement in protecting both victims and perpetrators, the comparative findings indicate a differentiated pattern across the two

jurisdictions. In terms of effectiveness, Indonesia’s criminal-based approach tends to provide strong formal protection of reputation but has not consistently ensured proportional safeguards for freedom of expression, and may disproportionately affect perpetrators. Conversely, Malaysia’s approach offers greater protection for freedom of expression through selective use of criminal law and reliance on civil remedies, yet may not always guarantee effective protection for victims, particularly in cases involving limited compensation capacity. These findings show  that both systems face distinct challenges in balancing protection for victims and perpetrators. Accordingly, law enforcement effectiveness in both jurisdictions reflects a conditional balance shaped by legal structure, enforcement practice, and competing rights.

For Indonesia, ongoing legal reform under Law No. 1 of 2023 must clarify the distinction between legitimate criticism and defamation, while applying proportionality and subsidiarity to ensure criminal law remains a last resort (ultimum remedium). The incor poration of mediation or restorative justice before criminal proceedings, alongside a graded sanction system that starts with public clarification, then proportional fines, and ultimately imprisonment for severe cases, could significantly reduce the risk of excessive criminalization. Moreover, stronger digital literacy and enhanced collaboration with digital platforms are necessary for a more proportionate digital regulatory framework.

 

Further regulatory refinement, particularly in clarifying the  boundaries between legitimate criticism and defamation, alongside the use of mediation and proportionate sanctions, remains essential within the implementation of Law No. 1 of 2023.

References 

Amin, Badia. “Penyelesaian Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama

Baik Melalui Media Sosial Berdasarkan Prinsip Restorative Justice.”

Legalitas: Jurnal Hukum  16, no. 2 (December 2024): 103.

https://doi.org/10.33087/legalitas.v16i2.531.

 

Anugraha, Sony Rizky, and Ahmad Sudiro. “Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana

Penghinaan/Pencemaran Nama Baik Melalui Media Sosial Berbasis

Restorative Justice Di Kepolisian Daerah Kalimantan Tengah. ”

Morality 

9, no. 2 (2023): 305. 

https://doi.org/10.52947/morality.v9i2.485. 

Asis, Asis. “Legal Protection for Defamation Suspects Who Spread Facts

on Social Media Reviewed from the ITE Law.” The Journal of SocioLegal and Islamic

Law

3, no. 1 SE -Articles (August 2024): 15 –21.

https://doi.org/10.30651/jssl.v3i1.23904.

Atmasasmita, Romli. Perbandingan Hukum Pidana Kontemporer. Edited

by Edisi revisi. Kencana, 2020.

Bakashmar, Muhammad Rashaad, Noor Inayah Ya’Akub, and Chan Sai

Keong. Perspectives in Business, Information & Human Sciences .

Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan: IKRAM Education Sdn. Bhd. for

Infrastructure University Kuala Lumpur, 2024.

DA, Ady Thea. “Mengenali Tiga Model Pertanggungjawaban Platform

Digital.” hukumonline.com, n.d.

Ding, Jo -Ann, and Sin Yew New. “COMMENT | Why Guan Eng

Shouldn’t Have Been Allowed to Sue Perkasa,” 2024.

Dopo, Gianluca Fredrick Wou, I Nyoman Putu Budiartha, and Ida Ayu

Putu Widiati. “Kebebasan Berpendapat Dalam Hubungannya

Dengan Tindak Pidana Ujaran Kebencian (Studi Putusan Pengadilan

Tinggi Denpasar Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/2020/PT.Dps). ” Jurnal Analogi

Hukum  5, no. 2 (2024): 162 –66.  https://doi.org/10.22225/ah.5.2.2023.162-166. 

Emaliawati, Emaliawati. “Defamation in the Digital Age: An Analysis of

the Application of Restorative Justice under Indonesian Criminal

Law.” Intellectual Law Review (ILRE)  2, no. 1 (2024): 32 –45.

https://doi.org/10.59108/ilre.v2i1.62.

Ginanjar, Raden P A. “MK Putuskan Pasal Pencemaran Nama Baik Di U ITE Tidak Berlaku Untuk Pemerintah, Korporasi Dan 

Kelompok,” 2025.

Global Freedom of Expression. “Attorney General of Malaysia v. Mkini

Dotcom Sdn Bhd. ” Global Freedom of Expression, 2021.

Guzman, Chad de. “Malaysia’s Politicians Keep Suing Each Other for

Defamation.” TIME, 2023. 

Hadi, Adwi Mulyana. “Cyber Crime in Renewing The ITE Law to Realize

The Goals of Legal Justice. ” Journal of Law, Society, and Islamic

Civilization 

12, no. 1 (April 2024): 49. 

https://doi.org/10.20961/jolsic.v12i1.85197. 

Hamzah, Emir, Susilawati, and M F R Lubis. “Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap

Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik Yang Dilakukan Melalui

Media Informasi Dan Elektronik.” Jurnal Al-Hikmah 3, no. 4 (2022):

957. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30743/jhah.v3i4.6259.

 

Handayana, Emi Puasa, Zainal Arifin, and Zico Junius Fernando.

“Criminal Penalties in Cyberspace: Between the Development of

Digital Democracy and Authoritarianism. ” Indonesian Journal of

Criminal Law Studies 10, no. 1 (2025).  https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v10i1.19652. 

Hartanto, Hartanto, Cahyono Cahyono, and Yosua Richard Y. “Penerapan Restorative Justice Dalam Kasus Pencemaran Nama Baik

Di Media Sosial (Nilai Kearifan Lokal). ” TANJUNGPURA LAW

JOURNAL  7, no. 2 (July 2023): 211.  https://doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v7i2.62085. 

Huda, Muhammad Hasbulloh. “Nilai -Nilai Dasar Hak Asasi Manusia

Dalam Konsep Al -Maqâshid Al -Syarî‘Ah.” MAQASHID Jurnal

Hukum Islam 2, no. 1 (November 2018): 1 –12.  https://doi.org/10.35897/maqashid.v2i1.167.

Husnita, N. “Pembaruan Special Defence Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik Melalui Media Elektronik Di Indonesia (Studi Komparasi Dengan Malaysia).” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis 3,

no. 7 (2022): 589–608. https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v3i7.176.

Indonesia, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 105/PUU -XXII/2024 tentang pengujian UndangUndang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 (2025). 

Kenyon, Andrew T. “Libel and Defamation in Journalism. ” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press,

2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.834.

 

Kirtley, Jane E, and Casey Carmody. “Criminal Defamation: Still ‘An

Instrument of Destruction’ in the Age of Fake News. ” Journal of

International Media & Entertainment Law 8, no. 2 (2020): 192–93.

Masum, Ahmad, and Md Rejab Md Desa. “Media and the Libel Law: The

Malaysian Experience.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

 155 

(November 2014): 34

–41. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.10.252. 

Muhajir, Anton. “Laporan Pemantauan Hak-Hak Digital Triwulan III

2024.” SAFEnet, 2025.

Munir. “Kajian Pasal 27 A UU No. 1 Tahun 2024 Tentang Perubahan

Kedua Undang -Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2008 Tentang ITE.

” 

Fundamental: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 13, no. 2 (September 2024): 1–

12. https://doi.org/10.34304/jf.v13i2.284.

Nurusshobah, N, M Said, and S Asiah. “Exposure of Disgrace on Social

Media from the Qur ’anic Perspective: Fazlur Rahman ’s Double

Movement Study.” Al-Irfani: Journal of Al Qur’anic and Tafsir 4, no.

1 (2023): 16–32. https://doi.org/10.51700/irfani.v4i1.533.

Pramudita, Wahyu Sinta Dewi, and Anis Widyawati. “Transnational

Enforcement Through the Indonesia

–Singapore Extradition 

Framework Against Corruption.” Jurnal USM Law Review 8, no. 3

(2025). https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i3.13066.

Project, Sinar. “Freedom of Expression in the Digital Space. ” Sinar

Project, August 2025.

Rahardja, Satria Dwie, and Zainal Arifin Hoesein. “Comparison Of Legal

Systems In The Perspective Of Contemporary Issues And Their

Application In Indonesia.” International Journal of Social Service and

Research  4, no. 12 (December 2024): 1 –2.  https://doi.org/10.46799/ijssr.v4i12.1149. 

Reid, Elspeth. “Defamation and Political Comment in Post -Soviet 

Russia.” Review of Central and East European Law 38, no. 1 (2013): 1–36.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/092598812X132741548872 22.

Reuters. “Indonesian Court Bans Government, Company from Defamation Complaints.” Reuters, 2025. 

——— . “Malaysia’s Troubled Ex -PM Ordered to Pay $300,000 to

Politician Over Defamatory Remarks,” 2024.

Rositawati, Dian, and et al. Melindungi Ekspresi: Analisis Pidana Dan

HAM Putusan Pengadilan Di Indonesia. Jakarta Selatan: LeIP, 2023.

Selviyana. “Perbandingan Hukum Positif Dan Hukum Pidana Islam

Terhadap Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik.” Muqarin Review

2, no. 1 (2023): 62. https://doi.org/10.15408/mr.v2i1.35186.

Sodiqin, Ali. “Legal, Moral, and Spiritual Dialectics in the Islamic

Restorative Justice System.” Ahkam: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah 21, no. 2

(2021): 373.

Sreedharam, Rajini Kumar, and Bavani Ramayah. “Sedition Law and the

Bloggers’ Freedom of Expression in Malaysia. ” Jurnal Undang Undang Dan

Masyarakat

26, no. 2020 (September 2020): 85 –96.

https://doi.org/10.17576/juum-2020-26-10.

Sugara, Mareta Bayu. “Tinjauan Fiqh Jinayah Terhadap Pencemaran

Nama Baik.” Jurnal Intelektualita: Keislaman, Sosial Dan Sains

 6, no. 

2 (December 2017): 243

–54. 

https://doi.org/10.19109/intelektualita.v6i2.1609.

 

Sugitanata, Arif, Ahmad Mustakim, L. Hendri Nuriskandar, and Elpipit.

“Integrasi Maqashid Syariah Terhadap Sistem Pemerintahan

Demokratis Dan Otoriter Di Negara Baru Merdeka. ” Al-Balad:

Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara Dan Politik Islam 3, no. 3 (2023): 167 –

86.

Surya Atmaja, Putu Oka. “Comparative Study Mekanisme Penyadapan

Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia Dan Inggris. ” Jurnal

Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal) 8, no. 1

(May 2019): 90.

https://doi.org/10.24843/JMHU.2019.v08.i01.p07.

Thiru, Steven. “Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and

Multimedia Act 1998 Creates a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech

and Expression, and Should Be Repealed,” 2025.

Wah, Wong Chong, and Wong Chun Keat. “Malaysia Media Law Guide:

Defamation, Privacy and Data Protection. ” Carter-Ruck, August 2025.

Wibowo, Muhtar Hadi, Ali Masyhar Mursyid, and Anis Widyawati. “Progressionism Restorative Justice Policies in Achieving Rehabilitative Criminal Justice.” Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law

Studies  9, no. 1 (2024): 117 –38.  https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v9i1.50292.

 

Widyawati, Anis, Ade Adhari, and Ridwan Arifin. “Who Executes Justice?

Comparative Institutional Paths from Verdict to Prison. ” Jambura

Law Review 8, no. 1 (2026): 160–89.  https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v1i1.31642.

 

Widyawati, Anis, Zico Junius Fernando, Ridwan Arifin, and Ali Masyhar

Mursyid. “Legal Challenges in Criminal Execution of The

Environmental Crime Cases in Indonesia: Efforts Toward Criminal

Law Reform. ” Jambe Law Journal  9, no. 1 (2026): 53 –88.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22437/k1djt237.

 

Yunida, Hailen Ike, Ibnu Alwan Saputra, Naufal Muhazzib, and Febriana

Istiqomah. “Prasangka Buruk Sebagai Simbol Memakan Daging

Bangkai.” Ta’wiluna: Jurnal Ilmu Al -Qur’an, Tafsir Dan Pemikiran

Islam  5, no. 3 (2024): 810 –23.  https://doi.org/10.58401/takwiluna.v5i3.18