---

Petitiioner Gunawan Simangunsong in the material review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions (IET Law), Thursday (27/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the withdrawal of the material review of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions (IET) lodged by Gunawan Simangunsong, Russel Butarbutar, Benny Irfan Siahaan, Muhammad Arsjad Yusuf, Nurharis Wijaya, Efer Koritelu, and Sarah Febrina through a decree on Thursday, August 27, 2020.

Chief Justice Anwar Usman stated that the Court had performed a preliminary examination through a panel hearing on July 13, 2020 and offered advice for revision pursuant to Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law. However, after the petition revision hearing on August 18, 2020, the Petitioners filed a request for the withdrawal of the petition No. 50/PUU-XVIII/2020 because the posita is not in accordance with the petitum or because the entire substance of the petition had changed.

Chief Justice Anwar stressed that Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “The Petitioner may withdraw his/her Petition before or during the examination thereof by the Constitutional Court,” while Article 35 paragraph (1) reads, “Withdrawal of a Petition as referred to in paragraph (1) means that the Petition may not be filed again.”

Also read:

Seven Advocates Challenge IET Law

Seven Advocates Challenging IET Law Revises Touchstones

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 Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: M. Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/27/2020 17:21 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.

---