---

Petitioners in the petition revision hearing of the material review of Articles 29 and 45B of the Information and Electronic Transactions (IET) Law, Tuesday (18/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material review hearing of Articles 29 and 45B of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions (IET), as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions (IET) in the Plenary Courtroom on Tuesday, August 18, 2020. The case No. 50/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by seven advocates.

In the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, Petitioner Russel Butarbutar conveyed the revision to the petition following the justices’ advice in the first hearing. He said that the touchstones, previously five articles, were reduced to only three—Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. He also added the comparison and development of notary or legal notice with other countries.

"The Petitioners describe it in the posita points 23, 24, and 25 with comparison to two countries, the Netherlands and India. In these two countries it is legally customary to provide a legal notice or notification or legal notary via WhatsApp or electronic media to other parties and the court has also acknowledged it," he said.

With regard to the legal vacuum in the petitum,the Petitioners agreed to keep point 2a because they believe that the a quo articles had violated human rights and could lead to legal disorder. They also laid out their argument of the specialization of the Advocate Law and advocates’ legal notice in points 20 to 28.

Also read: Seven Advocates Challenge IET Law

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners argued that Articles 29 and 45B of the IET Law are ambiguous and could be used to report any individual. In the petition, Petitioner I Gunawan Simangunsong explained that he is one of the attorneys of twelve students of the National Institute of Science and Technology (ISTN) who was put on academic leave unilaterally by the rector because of late payment of tuition fees. He then sent letter legal notices and invitations for mediation No. 17/BGP/III/2019 on March 18, 2019 and No. 21/BGP/III/2019 on March 21, 2019 (Evidence P-8) that questioned the rector’s decision. Petitioner I was then reported by the ISTN’s rector to the police for threat of violence and intimidation after reporting the rector’s alleged abuse of power via WhatsApp.

After mediated by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education, the report was to be retracted but Petitioner I received a notice that a police investigation had started three months after the mediation was over. Petitioner I felt that his constitutional rights had been violated due to the enactment of the a quo articles. Thus, the other petitioners, who are the attorneys of Petitioner I’s clients, fear potential damage due to this issue.

Writer: Utamin Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Muhammad Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/19/2020 17:42 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---