A single word changes who can be held responsible
Indonesia's Constitutional Court has ruled that criminal liability for a corporate offence can fall on a company, the person responsible for it, or both, granting a petition brought by Andri Yanto, president director of PT Abimanyu Pustaka Utama.
Contents
The decision, delivered in Central Jakarta on October 29, 2026, in case No. 371/PUU-XXIV/2026, changes how Article 326(1) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code must be understood. The Court declared the word "and" unconstitutional unless interpreted as "and/or".
The wording matters because "and" joined the corporation and its responsible person together as subjects of criminal liability. Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh explained that this made liability cumulative, meaning it had to apply to both. Under the Court's interpretation, authorities can pursue either subject individually or both together, according to the legal basis for holding each responsible.
The Court granted the petition in full. Its reasoning connected the disputed provision to Article 49 of Law No. 1 of 2026 on Criminal Adjustments, which already allows corporate criminal liability to operate cumulatively or alternatively.
For companies and the people who run them, the practical issue is how responsibility is assigned. A corporation is a legal subject in its own right, separate from the people acting for it. The ruling requires the choice between corporate liability, personal liability and liability for both to follow the basis of responsibility in the particular case.
Judges must therefore examine the facts established at trial when deciding which subject should face a sanction. The Court paired that flexibility with a warning that law enforcement officials must make the choice carefully.
Why Andri Yanto challenged the provision
Andri challenged Article 326(1) because he believed its wording exposed him to criminal liability through his position as a person responsible for a corporation. His objection concerned the link the provision created between the company's responsibility and his own.
He argued that the word "and" required liability to be imposed on the company and its responsible person together, without distinguishing the grounds for holding each accountable. In simple terms, his concern was that joining the two subjects in a mandatory pair could prevent an individual assessment of their responsibility.
Andri cited Article 28D(1) and Article 28G(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Those provisions concern fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law, and protection of the person and personal security. His petition presented the wording of the criminal procedure provision as a threat to those constitutional protections.
The Court's decision addressed the legal rule governing corporate criminal liability. No allegation of a particular corporate offence by Andri or PT Abimanyu Pustaka Utama was described in the account of his petition.
Andri also authorised seven advocates to represent him: Valdo Wira Dwiputra Madianung, Aldi Rizki Khoiruddin, Michael Graceson Loyver Sitompul, Emka Azzam Ittaqi, Angelina Agung Putri Zaman, Fajar Arafat and Talitha Danti Elvina.
What cumulative and alternative liability mean
The Court's central distinction is between responsibility imposed together and responsibility imposed separately. "Cumulative" means the corporation and its responsible person can both be held liable. "Alternative" means liability can fall on one of them.
The phrase "and/or" combines those possibilities. The Court identified three routes:
- Liability for the corporation alone, according to the basis for its responsibility.
- Liability for the person responsible for the corporation alone, according to the basis for that person's responsibility.
- Liability for both the corporation and its responsible person, where the grounds support holding both accountable.
A judge's task is to connect the findings at trial to the appropriate route. The legal basis for imposing responsibility on the corporation and the legal basis for imposing responsibility on an individual must guide that decision.
Why the two laws needed to align
Article 326(1) sits in the Criminal Procedure Code, known in Indonesia as KUHAP. Criminal procedure governs how criminal cases are handled. The disputed wording determines the subjects against whom responsibility for a corporate offence is applied.
Article 49 of the Criminal Adjustments Law permits cumulative or alternative responsibility. The Court found that leaving Article 326(1) with a compulsory pairing could create inconsistency, disharmony and legal uncertainty between the two laws.
Daniel, the constitutional justice explaining the Court's reasoning, said the procedural provision needed to use the same cumulative and alternative approach. In English translation, he stated:
According to the Court, it is important to adjust the norm of Article 326 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2025 to the norm of Article 49 of Law 1/2026, namely by using a formulation that is cumulative and alternative, using the phrase and/or in Article 326 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2025.
The Court also referred to Article 362(1) of Law No. 20 of 2025 as an existing use of cumulative and alternative wording. Its constitutional order concerned the interpretation of "and" in Article 326(1).
For a reader outside the legal profession, the problem is straightforward: rules dealing with the same responsibility need to work together. One provision joined the company and its responsible person as a mandatory pair, while another allowed responsibility to be assigned to either or both. The judgment brings the disputed provision into that second approach.
The legal sequence behind the decision
The case brought together a procedural law enacted in 2025, a criminal adjustments law enacted in 2026 and a constitutional challenge decided later in 2026. Their sequence helps explain why the Court examined how the provisions fit together.
- 2025: Law No. 20 of 2025 established the Criminal Procedure Code containing the disputed Article 326(1).
- 2026: Article 49 of Law No. 1 of 2026 on Criminal Adjustments provided for cumulative or alternative corporate criminal liability.
- October 29, 2026: The Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in case No. 371/PUU-XXIV/2026, granting Andri's petition in full.
The remedy was a required interpretation: the word "and" must be understood as "and/or". The Court used that interpretation to reconcile the provision with the Constitution and the approach set out in the Criminal Adjustments Law.
What judges and investigators must now assess
The Court instructed law enforcement officials to remain careful when determining who should bear responsibility for a corporate offence. They must assess whether liability belongs with the corporation, its responsible person, or both.
Judges can select among those possibilities on the basis of the legal facts revealed at trial. That makes the assessment of each subject's responsibility central to the outcome. A finding concerning the company and a finding concerning an individual each need a legal foundation.
The Court linked this approach to fairness and legal certainty under Article 28D(1) of the Constitution. Legal certainty means people should be able to understand the rules that apply to them and expect those rules to be used consistently. Here, the concern was that conflicting wording could produce different interpretations of who must face liability.
Companies and responsible officers therefore face a more flexible framework, with the outcome tied to the grounds for responsibility. Corporate liability remains available, personal liability remains available, and both may be applied together. The required care lies in deciding which outcome the facts and law support.
Key Points
- The Constitutional Court granted Andri Yanto's petition in full on October 29, 2026.
- The word "and" in Article 326(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be interpreted as "and/or".
- Liability may fall on the corporation, its responsible person, or both, according to the basis for each subject's responsibility.
- The decision aligns the disputed provision with Article 49 of the Criminal Adjustments Law.
- Judges must base their choice on the facts established at trial, and law enforcement officials must assess responsibility carefully.
