PASAL KARET DAN KRIMINALISASI KEBEBASAN BEREKSPRESI: ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP IMPLEMENTASI UU ITE PASCA REVISI

Abstrak

ABSTRAK

Perkembangan teknologi informasi telah menjadikan ruang digital sebagai arena utama partisipasi demokrasi, sekaligus memunculkan ketegangan antara perlindungan reputasi dan kebebasan berekspresi dalam penegakan Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE). Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis konstruksi norma "pasal karet" dalam UU ITE pasca revisi melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024, khususnya pada ketentuan pencemaran nama baik (Pasal 27A) dan ujaran kebencian (Pasal 28 ayat (2)), serta menilai sejauh mana ketentuan tersebut berpotensi mengkriminalisasi kebebasan berekspresi.  Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa revisi UU ITE telah membawa perbaikan redaksional melalui penambahan unsur "menuduhkan suatu hal" pada Pasal 27A dan perincian kategori identitas yang dilindungi pada Pasal 28 ayat (2), namun perbaikan tersebut belum sepenuhnya menghapus karakter multitafsir. Frasa seperti "menyerang kehormatan", "orang lain", "suatu hal", "menghasut", dan "permusuhan" tetap berpotensi ditafsirkan secara subjektif oleh aparat penegak hukum. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 105/PUU-XXII/2024 memberikan batas tafsir penting dengan mengecualikan lembaga pemerintah, institusi, dan jabatan dari cakupan "orang lain", serta mensyaratkan risiko nyata diskriminasi atau kekerasan dalam delik ujaran kebencian. Studi kasus Haris Azhar dan Fatia Maulidiyanti memperlihatkan bahwa meskipun putusan akhir membebaskan terdakwa, proses pidana itu sendiri tetap menimbulkan chilling effect bagi kebebasan sipil. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa persoalan pasal karet tidak semata-mata problem teks normatif, melainkan juga problem paradigma penegakan hukum yang harus berpedoman pada prinsip ultimum remedium, kepastian hukum, dan perlindungan hak asasi manusia.

Kata Kunci: UU ITE, Pasal Karet, Kebebasan Berekspresi.

ABSTRACT

The advancement of information technology has transformed digital spaces into primary arenas for democratic participation, while simultaneously generating tension between reputation protection and freedom of expression in the enforcement of Indonesia's Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE). This study aims to analyze the normative construction of "rubber articles" (multi-interpretable provisions) in the post-revision UU ITE under Law Number 1 of 2024, particularly the provisions on defamation (Article 27A) and hate speech (Article 28 paragraph (2)), and to assess the extent to which these provisions risk criminalizing legitimate expression.  This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The findings indicate that the revision introduced textual improvements, including the element of "accusing of a certain matter" in Article 27A and explicit identity categories in Article 28 paragraph (2), yet these changes have not fully eliminated the provisions' interpretive ambiguity. Phrases such as "attacking honor," "another person," "a certain matter," "incitement," and "hostility" remain susceptible to subjective interpretation by law enforcement officials. Constitutional Court Decision Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024 established important interpretive limits by excluding government institutions, corporations, and official positions from the scope of "another person," and by requiring a genuine risk of discrimination or violence for hate speech offenses. The case study of Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti demonstrates that even where defendants are ultimately acquitted, the criminal process itself produces a chilling effect on civil liberties. This study concludes that the problem of rubber articles is not merely a matter of normative drafting, but also a matter of law enforcement paradigm, which must be guided by the principles of ultimum remedium, legal certainty, and human rights protection.

Keywords: Electronic Information And Transactions Law, Rubber Articles, Freedom Of Expression.