---

The Petitioners’ attorney reading out the petition revisions virtually at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions, Monday (26/7/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Monday, July 26, 2021 | 19:29 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The second judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2008 as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) took place on Monday afternoon, July 26, 2021. The case No. 17/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by married couple Rosiana Simon and Kok An (Petitioners I and II).

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, attorney Afandi Arief Harahap conveyed the revisions to the petition. The Petitioners revised their argument to mention that Article 32 in conjunction with Article 48 of the EIT Law have harmed the them as they only mention prohibitions without clear explanation of its elements.

“Who has the right and who doesn’t? Then, is ‘against the law’ in those articles related to loss or not? Do the articles in the law has specialty or distinction from other articles that don’t mention such a phrase?” Harahap questioned.

Harahap then explained that the Petitioners’ petition differed from case No. 78/PUU-XII/2019, which was ruled on September 29, 2020. “In point 10, as explained earlier, the articles in question had imperil the sense of justice as they have multiple interpretations and, moreover, the criminal sanction is too severe and doesn’t reflect the sense of justice,” he said.

Also read: Charged for Storing Company Data in Google Drive, Couple Challenges EIT Law

Rosiana Simon (Petitioner I) was employed at PT Kadence International but was sued by the company for storing her work data on her personal Google Drive account, whose password was known by her husband, Kok An (Petitioner II).

In the petition, the Petitioners challenged Article 32 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), as well as Article 48 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the EIT Law. They asserted that the articles are ambiguous and could be interpreted differently, and should have been clarified in a law or other legal products such as implementing regulations. The Petitioners are concerned that the articles could imperil truth and justice for all citizens. Therefore, they request that the Court declare them unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/27/2021 11:11 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.

---