Freedom of expression constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, yet its exercise increasingly faces restrictions in Indonesia within the framework of Pancasila democracy. While international human rights law recognizes freedom of expression as a derogable right subject to strict conditions, the use of Pancasila as a basis for restricting this freedom often lacks clear operational parameters. This paper analyzes the constitutionality of restrictions on freedom of expression in Indonesia by examining their conformity with international human rights standards, particularly the three-part test. This study employs a normative legal research method, drawing on statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, as well as secondary data from legislation, court decisions, international human rights instruments, and academic literature. The findings indicate that although Indonesia formally adopts the principles of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity-proportionality, their implementation remains inconsistent due to vague legal norms and the abstract deployment of Pancasila as a justificatory framework. As a result, certain restrictions risk exceeding permissible limits and undermining democratic values. This research contributes by proposing an integrative analytical model that positions Pancasila as a normative lens within the three-part test framework, thereby bridging universal human rights standards with national ideological values. It concludes that restrictions on freedom of expression in Pancasila democracy can only be considered constitutional when they satisfy both international standards and clearly operationalized Pancasila values.
Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.