Between 2 March and 29 April 2026, the Court adopted four rulings concerning specific elements of the anti-corruption system:
Liability for obstruction of justice
The first ruling, issued on 2 March 2026 (Ruling 71/PUU-XXIII/2025), concerned Article 21 of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, which establishes liability for obstructing the investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of corruption cases. The Constitutional Court removed from the provision the wording referring to obstruction committed “directly or indirectly.” In the Court’s view, retaining the reference to indirect obstruction created a risk of over-criminalization, including with regard to lawyers, journalists, researchers, and other persons whose professional activities may involve analysing or assisting with corruption cases.
Application of the Anti-Corruption Law to violations in specific regulatory sectors
On 16 March 2026, the Court considered the application of Article 14 of the Anti-Corruption Law (Ruling 123/PUU-XXIII/2025), which links liability for corruption offences to violations provided for in sectoral legislation. The Constitutional Court held that the Anti-Corruption Law may apply to such violations only where the relevant sectoral law expressly qualifies them as corruption-related. In doing so, the Court limited the possibility of using anti-corruption legislation in relation to violations in specific regulatory sectors where the special laws themselves do not contain a direct indication of their corrupt nature.
The concept of state financial loss
The third ruling, issued on 29 April 2026 (Ruling 66/PUU-XXIV/2026), concerned the relationship between the concepts of “state loss” and “state financial loss” in the Government Administration Law. The Constitutional Court concluded that, in the relevant provisions, state loss should be understood specifically as state financial loss. This narrows the grounds for criminal-law assessment: where harm is not expressed in direct financial losses but, for example, in damage to state assets, a reduction in their value, or environmental consequences, its qualification as a corruption offence may require a higher standard of proof.
Guarantees of the independence of the Corruption Eradication Commission
Another ruling, also issued on 29 April 2026 (Ruling 70/PUU-XXIV/2026), concerned the status of members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Previously, KPK commissioners were required to fully terminate their duties at their previous place of work upon appointment. The Constitutional Court changed this approach: they may now be temporarily released from their previous duties with the possibility of returning to the relevant position after the end of their term at the KPK. The Court reasoned that the KPK is a body with a special institutional status and a fixed term of office for its leadership, making temporary suspension of the previous status a more proportionate solution than a final severance of the employment or service relationship.