---

Titik Puji Rahayu testifying for the Petitioners at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions on Monday (31/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Monday, May 31, 2021 | 15:50 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Law No. 19 of 2016 on the Amendment to Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) doesn’t regulate restriction of internet access, while such action has often been done by the Government on the network and physical levels. Any issue on the content should warrant legal action on the content, not on lower levels. When such issue arises, any legal action taken on the lower levels leads to massive impacts than if they are taken on the upper levels, said Airlangga University communication lecturer Titik Puji Rahayu.

She was presented by the Petitioners as an expert at the fifth material review hearing of the EIT Law on Monday afternoon, May 31, 2021. The petition No. 81/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the editorial team of Suara Papua and the Alliance of the Independent Journalists (AJI).

She revealed that the EIT Law doesn’t regulate restriction of internet access at the infrastructure and network levels because the telecommunication law was passed before the development of the internet. As such, Indonesia doesn’t have any regulation that specifically regulate application providers. “Indonesia has tried to regulate this but stopped it because there was not certainty,” she said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Titik believes such an action was easy and effective, but the rights of individuals who are not involved in content that allegedly contained hoax cannot be ignored. “The Papuans have the right to access the internet,” she said.

Therefore, such an action doesn’t necessarily be the best for the people, she said. She also believes that the Government or regulators can restrict internet access for the right reasons. Therefore, with careful regulation, it can protect human rights.

The Petitioners also presented Asep Komarudin, the head of network research and development division of the press legal aid institution of Greenpeace Indonesia of 2014-2018, as a witness. He testified that when he represented the Suara Papua, the news company had sent a protest letter to ask the Ministry of Communication and Informatics of the restriction to their news portal. He added that since the beginning of the restriction, the ministry hadn’t disclosed which article had violated Article 40 paragraph (2) of the EIT Law nor had they given the company any prior notification.

Also read:

Suara Papua and AJI Challenge EIT Law

Suara Papua and AJI Revise Petition on EIT Law

Govt: Citizens Can File Administrative Complaint against Content Restriction

Oce Madril: Government’ Authority to Restrict Internet Access Limited

The Petitioners feel disadvantaged due to the Government’s authority as stipulated in Article 40 paragraph (2b) of the EIT Law, which gives the Government immense authority to exercise what used to be a court’s authority to enforce law and justice to examine, adjudicate, and rule on allegedly unlawful electronic information and/or documents. They believe such an authority belongs to a court, as stipulated in Article 20 paragraph (2) and Article 25 of Law No. 48 of 2009. In addition, the Government’s right to terminate access is a restriction to the freedom of speech and information. This authority must be monitored strictly by the court in order to minimize Government’s abuse of power.

The Petitioners also believe the Government’s authority to arbitrarily interpret whether electronic information and/or documents have unlawful content is against the principle of due process of law. They argue that if the articles were left to be ambiguous and unclear regarding the unlawfulness of electronic information and/or documents, the Government would have the absolute authority to control and monopolize access to information. This will keep the public from receiving and expressing information to monitor the Government through the court. For those reasons, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 40 paragraph (2b) of Law No. 19 of 2016 unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/31/2021 17:08 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.

---