The Constitutional Court (The Court) held the initial trial for the review of Act No. 11/2008 about Information and Electronic Transaction (Act on IEC), Thursday (29/1), at The Court s Plenary Room, scheduled for Initial Verification.

This case was pleaded by Edy Cahyono, Nenda Inasa Fadhilah, Amrie Hakim, Legal and Human Rights Aids Union (PBHI), Alliance of Independent Journalist (AJI) and Press Legal Aid (LBH Pers). “Basically, we do not reject the issuance of Act on IEC,” said Anggara SH, the Petitioner s Legal Counsel, as he read the petition before the Board of Constitutional Justices. Yet, it was found that Article 27 paragraph (3) of the Act stating “Anyone purposefully and without rights to distribute and/or transmit and/or creating access to Electronic Information and/or Electronic Document containing insults and/or slander.” Indeed held back the freedom of press to speak, make comment and express themselves.
              
Besides that, in Article 27 paragraph (3) of Act a quo, the insults and slander mentioned was no longer differentiated based on objects, degree of punishment and kinds, but they were considered as one criminal action. For the Petitioners, this caused a legal uncertainty (rechtsonzekerheid) and had multi-interpretation. Thus, the Petitioners considered the enactment of the stipulation within the Act on IEC caused their constitutional rights to express their opinions through the internet based on facts had been reduced or damaged.
 
Therefore, the Petitioner demanded The Court to announce that Article 27 paragraph (3) of Act on IEC violated the 1945 Constitution and thus did not have a binding legal power.
 
Responding to the Petition, Head of Justice Panel Board M. Arsyad Sanusi, asked a question the Petitioners. “Do you also question the criminal sanction? If so, you should read the Case No. 50,” clarified Arsyad.
 
Considering the similarities between this Petition with the Petition for Case No. 50/PUU-VI/2008, The Court decided to join these two Petitions. “We (The Court) will join them for the sake of judicial efficiency, so we can examine both at the same time.” ended Arsyad (Andhini SF)
 
Photo: Doc. of CCRI PR/Yogi Djatnika

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI