The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of two cases on the Personal Data Protection Law, Tuesday (12/6/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 | 14:09 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review of Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) on Tuesday, December 6, 2022. The had been scheduled for cases No. 108/PUU-XX/2022 filed by Leonard Siahaan and No. 110/PUU-XX/2022 filed by Dian Leonaro Benny.
At this second hearing, the Petitioner of case No. 108/PUU-XX/2022, who challenges Article 1 paragraph (4), Article 2 paragraph (2), and Article 19 of the PDP Law, conveyed the revisions to the petition. He included a comparison between the PDP Law and a regulation in Europe in 2016, where they share 98% similarity. “This regulation makes an exception, in other words, it protects personal data in personal or domestic activities. In principle, it provides protection for professional and household personal data. The Petitioner also added the State Gazette of this norm,” he said.
He had previously argued that the PDP Law had not provided legal protection for personal data users, especially e-commerce home business actors, who are vulnerable to data breaches by hackers when making financial transactions. The advance of information technology allows personal data to be collected and transferred easily without the knowledge of the subject, thus resulting in threats against the subject’s constitutional rights. Personal data, he asserted, is part of human rights that needs to be protected.
Also read: Provisions on Personal Data Security for Individuals and Home Businesses Challenged
Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 110/PUU-XX/2022, who challenges that Article 15 paragraph (1) letter a of the PDP Law, said that he had added the Judiciary Law and the Constitutional Court Law to elaborate the Constitutional Court’s authority over this case, strengthened his legal standing by adding the impairment of his right and authority due to the enactment of the a quo Law, and explained the specific and potential harm that would befall him due to the enactment of the a quo Law.
“Regarding this article being petitioned, there are two possibilities. [First], for national defense; [second], for excluding the subject of personal data. I would like to emphasize the latter. The background of the petition has also been broken down [to explain],” he said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Wahiduddin Adams, dan Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, November 22, he had argued that the article in question was against Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which treats data as part of personal privacy. He believes privacy is a standalone right that should not depend on other rights, but it could be lost if someone publicize private things.
Losses due to violation of privacy are difficult to assess. They may interfere with personal life, so the victim of such a violation deserves compensation. Article 15 paragraph (1) of the PDP Law does not clearly and accurately explain “the interest of national defense and security,” so could potentially lead to multiple interpretations and problems in the future and is used as justification for excluding the rights of subjects of personal data.
Based on the aforementioned argumentation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court to rule the petition by declaring Article 15 paragraph (1) letter a unconstitutional and not legally binding, or declaring Article 15 paragraph (1) letter a unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not be interpreted as “‘The interest of national defense and security’ means any interest related to the efforts to maintain and protect state sovereignty, territorial integrity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and the safety of the entire nation from all forms of threats.”
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fitri Yuliana
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/7/2022 08:31 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.