House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of two cases on Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection, Monday (1/30/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Monday, January 30, 2023 | 15:57 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The exception of personal data processing by individuals in personal or domestic activities as per Article 2 paragraph (2) of Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) is because individual right to privacy exist within personal data, said House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member Supriansa at the judicial review hearing for cases No. 108/PUU-XX/2022 filed by Leonard Siahaan and No. 110/PUU-XX/2022 filed by Dian Leonaro Benny. The hearing took place in the Constitutional Court’s (MK) plenary courtroom on Monday, January 30, 2023.

“The exception of personal data processing by individuals in personal or domestic activities is the privacy of the individual data owner who performs said processing,” he said virtually.

At the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, he added that in order to protect the right to privacy, the state must protect citizens against violation and use of personal data by other parties. This was the legislatures’ consideration in forming the PDP Law.

Personal data protection, he said, must respect personal data as the data owner’s privacy. The limitation of the use of personal data by the data owner is part of their right to privacy.

“Because od the respect for personal data, personal data processing by the data owner for personal or domestic activities are excepted from the protection of personal data as a public issue in legislation. This is accommodated by Law No. 27 of 2002 in Article 2 paragraph (2),” he explained.

Domestic Economic Activities

Meanwhile, personal protection in business in a domestic activity has been legally protected. Supriansa said that every economic transaction in domestic activities carried out with an electronic system is protected and the Government has also played a role in protecting it. Domestic commerce activities are regulated by the Government Regulation No. 80 of 2019 on Trade through Electronic Systems, which regulates the use of electronic systems specifically designed for trade with various capitals, both online and offline, by business actors, private consumers, and state administration agencies. “Thus, the exception in the a quo article has provided protection for users’ privacy rights in personal and domestic activities. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument is inaccurate and is an unfounded concern,” he explained.

Meanwhile, relating to the Petitioner’s argument for case No. 110/PUU-XX/2022, Supriansa emphasized that Article 15 paragraph (1) of the PDP Law clearly regulates the principles of personal data protection so personal data processing for defense and security has met the principles of accountability.

The Government should have given a testimony but requested a delay, which the President’s proxy confirmed. “The President’s proxy is not prepared to give a testimony, so this President’s testimony will be postponed. The hearing will resume on Monday, February 13, 2023 at 11:00 WIB,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman announced.

Also read:

Provisions on Personal Data Security for Individuals and Home Businesses Challenged

Petitioner Provides Comparison of Provisions on Personal Data Protection

The Petitioner of case No. 108/PUU-XX/2022 believes the PDP Law has 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 advances of information technology allow 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. Therefore, provisions on personal data is the manifestation of the recognition and protection of basic rights. As such, the PDP Law, he emphasized, has not provided protection for the rights of subjects of personal data.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 110/PUU-XX/2022 believes Article 15 paragraph (1) of the PDP Law 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.

The Petitioner appealed to the Court to declare Article 15 paragraph (1) letter a unconstitutional and not legally binding, or declare 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 1/31/2023 11:33 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.

---