Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih, Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh at the judicial review hearing of the Law on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT), Wednesday (4/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 11:20 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 on the Amendment to Law No. 11 of 2008 (EIT Law) on Wednesday, April 20, 2022. The petition revision hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

At the second hearing for petition No. 36/PUU-XX/2022, Dixon Sanjaya, the legal counsel of the 29 content creators, conveyed the revisions to the petition. They Petitioners, he said, had simplified the petition and strengthened their legal standing by submitting certificates of webinars that they had attended in order to convince the Court of their profession.

“The Petitioners have also added a new posita that the EIT Law still needs revision due to its catch-all articles,” Sanjaya explained.

Also read: Content Creators Challenge Provision on Defamation in EIT Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners—29 content creators including Eriko Fahri Ginting, Leon Maulana Mirza Pasha, Aryadi Kristanto Simanjuntak, and Faransiska Naomi Sitanggang—asserted that Article 27 paragraph (3) and its Elucidation as well as Article 28 paragraph (2) of the EIT Law did not have standard and clear benchmarks regarding the word “defamation” and the phrase “to incite hatred or dissension” in social media. As content creators who actively express their opinions on webinars and publications in the field of law, the Petitioners feel threatened in expressing their thoughts and attitudes that are in accordance with their conscience. They believe this element of defamation has been regulated in Article 310 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP), which stipulates that the element of affront or defamation is only spoken orally. However, if it is done by broadcasting, showing, and/or pasting, the reference is Article 310 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. Thus, when done in social media, the Petitioners argued, both the EIT Law and the Criminal Code do not have clear definition, characteristics, or parameter for it.

The Petitioners also argued that the phrases “without authority,” “distributes,” “transmits,” and “causes to be accessible” in the catchall articles are multi-interpretive and potentially violate the Petitioners’ freedom of opinion. Thus, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 27 paragraph (3) and the Elucidation to Article 27 paragraph (3) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the EIT Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

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

Translation uploaded on 4/20/2022 14:02 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.

---