---

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the legal considerations in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Postal Service Law, Wednesday (25/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—All postal delivery service providers are authorized to open and/or check packages to ensure they are free from banned goods, and not to read the content of letters, ruled the Constitutional Court in the Decision No. 78/PUU-XVII/2020 read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo at a ruling hearing on Wednesday, November 25, 2020 in the plenary courtroom.

PT Pos Indonesia and Harry Setya Putra (Petitioners I and II) argued that Article 1 point 2, Article 1 point 8, Article 15, Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 29 paragraph (2), Article 30, Article 46, Article 51 of the Postal Service Law were in violation of Article 33 paragraphs (2), Article 33 paragraph (4), and Article 34 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. 

With regard to Petitioner II’s argument that Article 1 point 8 of the Postal Service Law violated the right to privacy for comparing letters to other postal goods—such as packages, logistics, and money—in its legal considerations, the Court stated that this authority to open and/or check packages shall apply before postal service users. Therefore, both parties witness the check. “Therefore, the Court believes such a provision is clear and does not violate the citizens’ constitutional rights as guaranteed in Article Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

Also read: PT Pos Indonesia on Postal Service Losing Exclusivity

Protecting Right to Privacy 

Justice Suhartoyo said, based on existing provisions in the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, the state has an obligation to protect the citizens’ right to privacy, including from any threat to their personal lives, family, reputation, including with regard to correspondence. The Court implored that Petitioner II read the provision on right to privacy with regard to letters in the a quo norm comprehensively. 

The Court believes that the rights of postal service users correlate with Article 30 of the Postal Service Law, which mandates postal service providers to maintain the confidentiality, security, and safety of postal goods. Such obligation is strengthened by the sanctions against violations, both administrative sanctions for postal service providers and criminal sanctions for any person who deliberately and without rights violates the confidentiality of postal goods. This means that the phrase "any person" in the a quo article applies to anyone in the postal service providers and other parties related to the overall activities of the management and administration of postal services.

“Therefore, the Court believes the Postal Service Law has protected the privacy right of citizens, including the confidentiality of letters proportionally according to the Constitution,” Justice Suhartoyo stressed at a hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other seven constitutional justices.

Also read: Preliminary Hearing of Postal Service Law Continues

No Legal Standing 

Meanwhile, PT Pos Indonesia as Petitioner I was represented by Noer Fajrieansyah as the Director of Strategic and Interagency Relations, who in fact no longer served as a director and is currently the Agency Director of PT Permodalan Nasional Madani (PT PNM). Therefore, Noer Fajrieansyah had no legal relations with PT Pos Indonesia and couldn’t represent it legally.

Also read: PT Pos Indonesia Revises Legal Standing and Argument

At the previous hearing, Petitioner I said they are one of the state-owned enterprises that play an important role in the country’s development. Petitioner I organizes the mail, and deliver goods, and offers other postal services for the public. Petitioner I argued that Article 1 number 2 of the Postal Service Law had disrupted its performance. They believed the article means that postal services can be offered by any business entity that meets requirements. This has led to Petitioner I losing its exclusive rights as the state’s postal company and that is now on par with other non-state postal companies. The enactment of the article has also led to Petitioner I having difficulties in competing with private postal companies.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II, who is an individual citizen, feels harmed by the enactment of Article 1 number 8, Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 29 paragraph (2), Article 30, and Article 46 of the Postal Service Law due to letters receiving equal treatment to other postal goods. He believed letters required the protection of the right to privacy, making it stand out compared to other postal goods. Letters contain private information between the sender and the recipient, which constitutes a human right that is expressly guaranteed in Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, in practice, any letter could be opened and checked by the postal company before being delivered, which violates the right to privacy.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Annisa Lestari

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/27/2020 18:16 WIB

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

---