---

House III Commission member Syarifuddin Suding delivering the House\'s statement in the judicial review hearing of the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law, Tuesday (4/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—House III Commission member Syarifuddin Suding said that Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) was created by lawmakers to provide guarantees and protection to private or public electronic information and/or documents for all people without exception.

"Because electronic information and electronic documents are prone to misuse by irresponsible parties, brining damage to other people or the public," said Syarifuddin in a follow-up trial of the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) and Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright on Tuesday (4/2/2020) at the Constitutional Court (MK). 

Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law reads, "Any person who knowingly and without authority or unlawfully in any manner whatsoever alters, adds, reduces, transmits, tampers with, deletes, moves, hides electronic information and/or electronic records of other persons or of the public."

Syarifuddin asserted that Article 25 paragraph (2) letter a of the Copyright Law provides protection and legal certainty of broadcasting institutions over their production results, which use a lot of resources and effort. Article 25 paragraph (2) letter a of the Copyright Law reads, "The economic rights of Broadcasting Organizations as referred to in Section (1) include the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit others from engaging in: a. Rebroadcasting of a broadcast.…" 

Rebroadcast 

Meanwhile, Director General of Informatics Applications at the Ministry of Communication and Information Semuel Abrijani Pangerapan was present at the Court\'s session representing the Government. According to the Government, Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law stipulates that every person must have rights before transmitting electronic information belonging to another person. This right in the implementation of broadcasting is obtained based on Article 25 paragraph (1) of the Broadcasting Law related to the obligations of the subscription broadcasting institution (LPB) having a broadcasting operation permit and Article 25 paragraph (2) letter a of the Copyright Law and Article 43 of the Broadcasting Law related to obtaining permits from the public broadcasting institution (LPP) and private broadcasting institution (LPS) as holders of economic rights over its broadcasts. 

"Based on this, it is clear that Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law is not unconstitutional," Semuel stressed. 

According to the Government, in Article 25 paragraph (2) letter a of the Copyright Law, in the case of a broadcasting institution simultaneously broadcasting content belonging to other broadcasting institutions, then it is a rebroadcast activity. 

According to the Government, what the Petitioner did was re-broadcast. Therefore, it must also obtain a permit from the LPP and LPS as stipulated in Article 25 paragraph (2) of the Copyright Law. Then it becomes clear that the phrase "re-broadcasting" in Article 25 paragraph (2) letter a of the Copyright Law is not unconstitutional. 

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner of case No. 78/PUU-XVII/2019 argued that they had been disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 25 paragraph (2) of the Copyright Law because they were deemed having done "re-broadcast." The Petitioner, who exercises the provisions of the Broadcasting Law to distribute at least 10% of the programs of public broadcasters (TVRI) and private broadcasters (private TV-stations that broadcast free to air), was reported by PT MNC SKY VISION to the police for rebroadcasting MNC Group\'s TV contents. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Halim/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---