Authored By: Helfrida Miftakhur Raifa Sogara
Diponegoro University
ABSTRACT
In demonstration, protesters often face challenges such as a violation to the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. Often security forces use a disproportionate use of force in dispersing the assemblies, leading to violent protest.
Unfortunately, it is undeniable that this also happened during a peaceful protest to disperse the assemblies, where in a peaceful protest, use of force should not be used at all and state through its authorities should guarantee the protection of the right to peaceful assembly when the protesters expressed their opinion. This article will analyse challenges during the escalating protests following the 17+8 Movement in Indonesia which has led into violence against the civilian. This article finds that there exists a violation to the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly as governed under an international legal instrument, the ICCPR, during the protests.
Keyword: Right to freedom of expression, right to peaceful of assembly, widespread demonstration, ICCPR
Introduction
A widespread demonstration has occurred in Indonesia following the protest against the unreasonable allowance of the Indonesian House of Representatives, including housing allowance with a total amount of 50.000.000 rupiahs or 3.045 dollars per month. This indeed incites rage from the lower to middle class, who only receive a regional minimum wage of about 5.396.000 rupiahs or 328 dollars per month. Indonesia Ministry of Home Affairs stated that at least 107 demonstrations were conducted across the 32 provinces in Indonesia. This widespread demonstration was peaceful at the beginning, however an allegation arises that a person or a group of persons became the provocateurs of the violent protest. At least 10 people died during the demonstration between 25 August to 1 September 2025.
Among those 10 people, there is one person who marks the symbol of fight, Affan Kurniawan. He was a GoJek driver, one of Indonesian online taxi platforms, who died during the demonstration without even being a part of the demonstration. He was going to deliver food to his customer, however a police tactical vehicle ran over him. This incident becomes a symbol of authority oppression as well as fight against it. The citizens then use his green-colored GoJek jacket as a symbol of fight. Another incident that becomes the symbol of fight is the bravery of an old-woman named Mrs. Ana who stands in front of a formation of police officers in full gear with shields while holding an Indonesian flag, wearing a pink hijab. Mrs. Ana’s bravery and her iconic pink hijab then become a symbol of fight alongside Affan Kurniawan and continuously used as a protest across online platforms where many people change their profile picture into pink and green duotone photo.
Following this protest, a movement called 17+8 Indonesian Citizen Demands was initiated by several public figures and activists. The movement is the symbol of Indonesian people’s voice since it resembles the Independence Day of Indonesia, which is August 17. It contains all matters that have to be fulfilled by the public authorities of Indonesia, for example the Indonesia House of Representatives, highlighting transparency, reformation, and empathy. The 17 demands contains list of tasks which need to be fulfilled by the authorities such as forming an Independent Investigation Team into the cases of the victims of state violence and human rights violations by security forces during the August 28-30 demonstrations with a clear and transparent mandate; end police violence; addressing the matter of allowance or benefit increases for DPR; to open dialogue with labor unions to resolve issues related to minimum wage and outsourcing, and more. These 17 demands are given a deadline for 1 week until September 5. While the 8 demands contain larger scale matter including; to draft a fairer tax reform plan; pass and enforce the law on asset confiscation from corruptors; strengthen the independence of the Corruption Eradication Commission or Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi; and to reform the police institution as well as the Indonesia Military Force; strengthen the National Human Rights Commissions; and to review policies in the economic and labor sectors. These 8 demands are given a deadline for 1 year until August 31 2026.
Responding to the ongoing demonstration, President of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto, instead released a controversial statement where a demonstration must be held with permission, a statement that contradicts the international standard of conducting a peaceful assembly which will be further assessed below. Not to mention the ongoing police oppression towards demonstrators, including alleged use of unnecessary or disproportionate force by security forces, unlawful arrest of demonstrators and journalists, and the absence of legal assistance which escalates the negative impact of the limitation. This indeed becomes a challenge to the implementation of the right to freedom of expression and the right to a peaceful assembly under the framework of international human rights law and as guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution of Republic Indonesia, which may lead into an unlawful limitation to those rights by the authorities. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”) noticed this matter and released a statement on 1 September 2025, declaring that the authorities must uphold the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in accordance with international norms and standards.1 The OHCHR also mentioned that a prompt, thorough, and transparent investigation into all alleged violations of international human rights law during the demonstration must be conducted.
The International Legal Framework Regulating the Right to Freedom of Expression and The Right to Peaceful Assembly
Protests engage both the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In consequence, both rights must be protected during the demonstration without any unlawful interference. As Indonesia parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), they should adhere to the international standards on the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly that are governed under the Covenant, respectively under Article 19 and Article 21. Article 19 of the ICCPR mentioned that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Interference towards this right may only be conducted if it is provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.2 While Article 21 of the ICCPR mentioned that the right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized and no restrictions may be placed except conducted in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.3 Both articles define the only lawful restriction is when it is provided by law and necessary for the aforementioned reasons. However, the ongoing demonstrations in Indonesia which involved a disproportionate force by security forces, unlawful arrest of demonstrators and even journalists, and no legal assistance provided to the demonstrators remains unlawful restrictions towards both freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. These unlawful restrictions may create chilling effects that will discourage citizens from actively participating in protest or rally, expressing their opinion freely.
Article 19 of the ICCPR covers every form of expression including political discourse and journalism.4 This also includes the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives, allowing media to further comment on these issues without censorship or restraint.5 However, during the widespread demonstration in Indonesia, public figures, media and journalists face challenges in reporting the demonstration. Public figure like Ferry Irwandi, who also spread the 17+8 demands across his platform, and critically commented on governmental issues such as the Indonesia Military Forces Bill or RUU TNI, was doxed by thousands of people and even received threats. This shows the lack of protection on the right to freedom of expression.
In demonstrations, freedom of expression often related with peaceful of assembly,6 when people will gather in a place to express their opinion verbally or through raising banners or placards. Peaceful assemblies can be used to pursue contentious ideas or goals,7 which in this case is to fulfill the 17+8 Indonesian Citizen Demands. During the 25 August 2025 demonstrations and so on, the demonstrators always seek for a peaceful protest. However, some witnessed that there were provocateurs which did not belong to the demonstrators that incited others to use violence and even looting.8 This pattern was allegedly similar with what happened in the May 1998 riot which was an intended method to incite the protesters to use violence. In justifying the use of force by the security forces, authorities must be able to present credible evidence that, before or during the event, the protesters are inciting others to use violence and such actions are likely to cause violence.9 Other than that, the authorities have to ensure that the protesters have violent intentions and plan to act on them.10 Among the arrested protesters, evidence of violent incitement or violent intentions is absent.
Although there are provocateurs who incite violence, protesters who remain peaceful may not be considered as having a non-peaceful assembly. This is recognized by the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) in the case of Laguna Guzman v. Spain which the Court reiterated that an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviors.11 Consequently, isolated acts of violence may not justify the use of force by the Indonesian security force which hinder the right to peaceful assembly.12 This further unjustified the act of Indonesian security forces where many peaceful protesters were injured due to the excessive use of force by the authorities. The rights of those peaceful protesters are clearly violated by this act.
Permission and Notification to Conduct Demonstration
In response to the requirement of permission in demonstration stated by President Prabowo, State practice shows that permission in demonstration is not required. A demonstration is a right, therefore it does not require the authorization of the State. However, it may require notification on participation and organization of the assemblies.13 This is acknowledged by the ECtHR in the case of Navalnyy v. Russia, that his arrest on the grounds that he participated in unauthorised public events was a violation of his right to freedom of peaceful assembly.14 Consequently, authorization is not necessary for demonstration and if it is enacted will create adverse effects towards the civilians rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
However, spontaneous demonstrations may also occur. For example, a spontaneous demonstration has occurred in Dagestan, which arose due to municipal infrastructure issues such as the spontaneous anti-mobilization rallies and antisemitic riot at Makhachkala airport.15 During the protest, there is violence against women and beatings of detainees in custody.16 In terms of spontaneous demonstrations, the right to peaceful assembly still has to be protected. The ECtHR stressed that spontaneous demonstration may still be legitimate as long as the protesters do not intentionally break the notification rules and do not cause disruption that is more than what is inevitable.17 This is in line with what happened in Dagestan where the authorities continue to tolerate local protest against fragmented and mundane issues, and not larger spontaneous demonstration which involves political implication.18
Notification before demonstration may be considered as a restriction towards the right to peace of assembly. However, it is legitimate as long as it adheres to the international standards under Article 21 of the ICCPR. In Indonesia, this notification regime is regulated under the Police Regulation of Republic Indonesia Number 7 of 2012, highlighting the written notification requirement for the mass representatives before conducting a demonstration which should be sent to the police officers.19 This becomes a form of legitimate restriction towards this right and highlighting the fact that no permission needed before conducting a demonstration, debunking President Prabowo’s statement.
Violent Protest Under the Right to Peaceful Assembly
Although there is a possibility that a peaceful assembly may provoke violent reactions from the protesters, it must not be sufficient grounds to prohibit or restrict the assembly or demonstration. Violent protest, while not a peaceful one, is also protected under the right to peaceful assembly. An interference to the right to peaceful assembly may be conducted to cease the act, such as arresting those who commit wrongful acts. However, this interference must be conducted in accordance with the law and by considering other rights, such as the right to a fair trial. Most of the protesters have experienced the absence of legal assistance during the arrest, leading to a violation to this right. During the widespread demonstration in Indonesia, following the violent protest, Amnesty Indonesia shared data that at least 6 people were unlawfully arrested, protests-in-dagestan-potential-for-resistance-or-a-safety-valve/#> accessed 13 September 2025, (‘PSCRP’).
those are Delpedro Marhaen, Syahdan Hussein, Muzaffar Salim, Khariq Anhar, Laras Faizati, and Wawan Hermawan, who all of them are speaking about civilian rights in a peaceful protest.20 These people were seen as the provocateurs of violent protest by the authorities without clear evidence of inciting the violence. This is inconsistent with the international standards where arresting violent protesters must be followed by sufficient evidence proving the person in question has incited violence during the protests.21
Conclusion and Suggestion
An uncountable number of violations of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly has happened during the protests following the 17+8 Movement in Indonesia between 25 August 2025 until 5 September 2025. Not only violent, the demonstrations were also deadly. Finally, on 5 September 2025, the House of Representative responded to the 17+8 Indonesian Citizens Demand and will take action in accordance with the 25 mentioned in the list. Following that event, people cease to demonstrate. However, those who are arrested remain questionable whether it was a lawful or unlawful arrest. Post demonstration, people are still seeking for justice in relation to the fulfilment of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. Indonesia should immediately form an Independent Investigation Team to any violations occurring during the protests according to the international standards mentioned under the ICCPR as those acts will create chilling effects that will discourage people to speak about their rights through verbal expression and assembly, where it is very significant to uphold the democracy.
Reference(S):
1 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (‘OHCHR’), ‘Indonesia protests: call for restraint and dialogue’ (OHCHR, 1 September 2025) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press releases/2025/09/indonesia-protests-call-restraint-and-dialogue> accessed 8 September 2025.
2 Art. 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 171 UNTS 999 (‘ICCPR’).
3 Art. 21, ICCPR.
4 UN Human Rights Committee (‘UNHRC’), General Comment No. 34, CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011, (‘General Comment No. 34’), para. 11.
5 General Comment No. 34, para. 20.
6 General Comment No. 37, para. 9.
7 General Comment No. 37, para 7.
8 Mochammad Fajar Nur, ‘Kejanggalan Perusakan & Penjarahan Demonstrasi Agustus 2025’, (‘Tirto.id 2 September 2025’) <https://tirto.id/kejanggalan-perusakan-penjarahan-demonstrasi-agustus-2025- hgWG#google_vignette> accessed 8 September 2025.
9 General Comment No. 37, para. 19.
10 General Comment No. 37, para. 19.
11 Laguna Guzman v. Spain, ECHR, 41462/17, 2020, p. 35.
12 General Comment No. 37, para. 27; African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, (‘Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa’), para. 70.
13 Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, para. 71.
14 Navalnyy v. Russia, ECHR, 29780/12, Judgment, 2018.
15 Post-Soviet Conflicts Research Program (‘PSCRP’), ‘Spontaneous Protests in Dagestan: Potential for Resistance or a Safety Valve?’, (‘besacenter.org 26 June 2025’) <https://besacenter.org/spontaneous-
16 PSCRP.
17 Mythili Mishra, ‘’Legitimate’ Protest in European Human Rights Law: A Critical Reconstruction’, Cambridge Law Review Vol. 7 Issue 2, 2022, p. 32.
18 PSCRP.
19 Art. 6, Police Regulation of Republic Indonesia Number 7 of 2012.
20 Amnesty Indonesia, ‘Usut kematian 10 warga terkait unjuk rasa, bebaskan aktivis HAM Delpedro dkk dan hentikan praktik otoriter atas unjuk rasa’, (‘amnesty.id 2 September 2025’) <https://www.amnesty.id/kabar-terbaru/siaran-pers/usut-kematian-10-warga-terkait-unjuk-rasa-bebaskan aktivis-ham-delpedro-dkk-dan-hentikan-praktik-otoriter-atas-unjuk-rasa/09/2025/> accessed 13 September 2025.
21 General Comment No. 37, para. 82.
