REKONSTRUKSI REGULASI PERLINDUNGANHUKUM JURNALISTIK BERBASIS KEADILAN DALAM MENDUKUNG KEBEBASAN PERS DI INDONESIA

The importance of research: Freedom of the press constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic governance and the rule of law in Indonesia. Although this freedom is constitutionally guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and further regulated through Law Number 40 of 1999 on the Press, recent legal developments reveal persistent normative tensions between press law and general criminal law. The enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Indonesian Criminal Codeand the continued application of Law Number 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions have created interpretative overlaps that potentially weaken legal certainty for journalists. These regulatory inconsistencies demonstrate the urgent need to reconstruct the legal framework for journalistic protection based on principles of substantive justice in order to prevent the criminalization of journalistic activities and to strengthen democratic accountability. Research purposes: This research aims to examine the normative weaknesses within the currentregulatory framework governing journalistic legal protection in Indonesia. It seeks to formulate a reconstruction model grounded in substantive justice values through statutory harmonization and doctrinal clarification. The study also intends to strengthen the conceptual positioning of press law as a lex specialis within the national legal system. Research method: This study employs a normative juridical method focusing on statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The research analyzes primary legal materials, including constitutional provisions, press law, criminal law, and electronic information law, supported by secondary legal materials such as legal doctrines, scholarly publications, and official legal interpretations. The analysis is conducted systematically and prescriptively to assess normative coherence, hierarchy of laws, and consistency with substantive justice principles. Result : The findings demonstrate that the current regulatory structure does not fully embody substantive justice due to overlapping provisions and the absence of explicit normative safeguards prioritizing press law in journalistic disputes. The lack of a mandatory lex specialis mechanism creates legal uncertainty and opens space for the application of general criminal provisions to journalistic activities. The study proposes regulatory reconstruction through explicit harmonization clauses, normative affirmation of public interest defense, and strengthened institutional coordination mechanisms. Such reforms are expected to enhance legal certainty, prevent disproportionate criminalization, and reinforce press freedom within Indonesia’s democratic legal order