Legal counsels attending a material judicial review hearing of the EIT Law, Thursday (10/10/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of of Law No. 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) on Thursday, October 10, 2024. The third hearing was for cases No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, petitioned by Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan, and No. 115/PUU-XXII/2024, filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the hearing was supposed to present the testimonies of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President (Government). However, both were not prepared to testify.

“The House sent a letter informing that they would not attend the hearing and asked that it be rescheduled. The Government or President also corresponded and stated that they were not prepared to testify. Therefore, the Court reschedules the hearing for Tuesday, October 29, 2024 at 13:30 WIB,” the chief justice announced at the plenary hearing in the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Activist Challenges EIT Law for Arrest After Video on Environmental Protection

Environment Activist Revises Arguments Against EIT Law

The case No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan. At the preliminary hearing on Monday, August 26, the Petitioner’s legal team explained that the Petitioner is an environmental activist and a member of the Kawal Indonesia Lestari Coalition (Kawali) who fights for, preserves, and promotes awareness of environmental protection through contents or materials on various social media platforms.

He feels that he has become a victim of the catchall implementation of the EIT Law. A video he had uploaded on his Facebook page showing the pollution of one of the beaches in Karimunjawa garnered strong reactions.

The Petitioner’s statement was not directed at a particular person nor was it intended to incite hatred on the basis of ethnicity, religion, race, and group. However, he was subjected to legal proceedings and arrest. He was charged with a violation of: (i) Article 45A paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 28 paragraph (2); or (ii) Article 45 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 27(3) of the 2016 EIT Law. Thus, he believes his constitutional rights had clearly been violated.

The Jepara District Court found the Petitioner guilty under the old EIT Law (of 2016). In May 2024, the Semarang High Court acquitted him, but the public prosecutor filed an appeal against the Decision No. 374.PID.SUS/2024/PT SMG. He feared that this could potentially led to him being charged with the new EIT Law (2024). Therefore, he has legal standing in submitting this case to the Constitutional Court.

“The Petitioner believes Article 27A in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph (4) of the EIT Law, especially the phrase ‘other people’, does not provide legal certainty. The definition of ‘victims’ is very broad, so anyone can become the object of complaint. For this reason, it is necessary to limit its interpretation as manifested in Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP 2023),” said legal counsel Damian Agata Yuvens.  

Also read:

Prosecutor Criminalized under EIT Law for His Criticism

Prosecutor Criminalized for Criticism on Social Media Revises Petition Against EIT Law

Meanwhile, petition No. 115/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, a prosecutor of the Prosecution Office of the Republic of Indonesia. At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, September 3, the Petitioner’s legal team explained that the Petitioner had been reported to the South Tapanuli precinct for his critic against state administrators on social media, where he had accused them of abuse of power and arbitrary use of state facilities. He was then reported and detained at the South Tapanuli precinct. He believes that the state civil apparatus’ (ASN) resistance to criticism is a logical consequence of the ambiguity of the interpretation of the phrase “in the public interest” in Article 310 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code and the phrase “for public interest” in Article 45 paragraph (7) of the EIT Law.

The Petitioner believes the articles could be used to criminalize people for expressing criticizing state administrators, just as the Petitioner was. He argues that they are in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioner appeals to the Court to declare the phrase ‘in the public interest’ in Article 310 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code unconstitutional if not interpreted to include ‘any criticism against the government, criticism against state administrators so that they would not abuse power or act arbitrarily against the community, and criticism so that state administrators would not use state facilities arbitrarily, let alone without any right [to do so].’ So, Article 310 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code [should] change to ‘shall not constitute slander or libel if the action is clearly taken for self-defense or in the public interest, such as criticism against government policies, criticism against state administrators so that they would not abuse power or act arbitrarily against the community, and criticism so that state administrators would not use state facilities arbitrarily or without right.” 

Author            : Sri Pujianti
Editor            : N. Rosi
PR                 : Tiara Agustina
Translator       : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---