Ministry of Communication and Informatics’ Director-General of Informatics Application Semuel Abrijani Pangerapan testifying on behalf of the Government at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection, Monday (2/13/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Monday, February 13, 2023 | 14:21 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) stipulates that individuals, including those who carry out business or e-commerce activities at home, can be categorized as controllers of personal data, thus, are legally responsible for those data according to provisions in the PDP Law. Therefore, the argument of the Petitioner of case No. 108/PUU-XX/2022 has been accommodated in Article 2 paragraph (1) of the PDP Law, said Ministry of Communication and Informatics’ Director-General of Informatics Application Semuel Abrijani Pangerapan at the fourth 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..
He further said the phrase “personal activities” or “household activities” in Article 2 paragraph (1) of the PDP Law means activities in the private domain, which are personal, non-commercial, and non-professional. The exception in that article is a form of protection of human rights, especially for protecting right to privacy as referred to in Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
“The meaning of exception in the PDP Law means that individuals who process personal data for personal or household activities are not categorized as controllers of personal data, meaning that these individuals do not have responsibility as controllers of personal data as regulated in the PDP Law,” he said at the hearing in plenary courtroom on Monday, February 13, 2023.
Context of Legal System
Meanwhile, in response to the argument made by the Petitioner of case No. 110/PUU-XX/2022, the Government asserted that the limitation of Article 15 paragraph (2) of the PDP Law, i.e. to implement statutory law. Such a limitation must be within corridors of state defense and national security as stipulated by the Law. Abrijani stressed that the PDP Law must be understood in the context of legal system relating to the protection of personal data. Therefore, it is a special law, so that other norms mentioned in its articles must refer to provisions in other laws that specifically regulate matters, such state defense and national security.
“If the petition No. 110/PUU-XX/2022 was granted, it would reduce the definition of state defense and national security in the PDP Law and could potentially lead to conflict with other laws that mention state defense and/or national security, such as Law No. 3 of 2002 on State Defense, Law No. 23 of 2019 on the Management of National Resources for State Defense,” he said on site at the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
The Court asked whether the Petitioners would present any witnesses or experts for the following hearing. The Petitioners, who attended the hearing on site, said they would not, but the President’s proxy said they would present two experts.
“So, the hearing is adjourned until Monday, February 27, 2023 at 11:00 WIB to hear two experts for the President’s proxy,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
Provisions on Personal Data Security for Individuals and Home Businesses Challenged
Petitioner Provides Comparison of Provisions on Personal Data Protection
Personal Data an Exception in Personal Data Processing
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 2/13/2023 15:58 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.
Monday, February 13, 2023 | 14:21 WIB 11470