Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of the material judicial review of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions, Wednesday (9/29/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Wednesday, September 29, 2021 | 21:47 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The material judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2008 as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Decision No. 17/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, September 29, 2021.

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court holds that the Petitioners’ potential loss would indeed be gone if Articles 32 and 48 of the EIT Law was declared null and void. On the other hand, the electronic information and/or document that they were in possession of would potentially lose any existing protection as both articles provide such protection.

The two articles offer protection of personal electronic information or documents, so the Court views Article 32 as a response to the advances in EIT, especially as technology has created the need for electronic documents and eased access to other people’s electronic documents.

“Therefore, the Court consider Articles 32 and 48 of the EIT Law important in guaranteeing the security of personal data and ensuring that the transaction or transfer of electronic information occurs well without causing any harm to its users. The guarantee of personal data security and valid, honest transfer of electronic information are preconditions to the fulfillment of the Petitioners’ and community members’ constitutional rights,” said Justice Manahan at a ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom, which the litigants attended virtually.

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

Norm Implementation

The Court maintains that declaring the Petitioners’ data sharing as an offense based on Article 32 of the EIT Law is concerns the implementation of the norm. As such, declaring the two articles could lead to legal uncertainty and the loss of legal protection as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. “Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition regarding Articles 32 and 48 of the EIT Law is legally groundless,” Justice Manahan declared.

Also read: Spouses Challenging EIT Law Revise Petition

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, they 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 were concerned that the articles could imperil truth and justice for all citizens. Therefore, they requested that the Court declare them unconstitutional and not legally binding.

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

Translation uploaded on 9/29/2021 16:56 WIB

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

---