Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih (center) chairing the second hearing for Case No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026, Tuesday (2/10/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another hearing for the material judicial review of Article 71 point 2 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law. This second hearing for Case No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026, taking place on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, was presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Asrul Sani.

Rachmad Rofik (Petitioner), who attended the hearing remotely, conveyed the revisions to the petition, in which he has dug deeper into the systemic unfairness of the determination of internet data tariffs through their relevance to Constitutional Court Decision No. 235/PUU-XXIII/2025.He believes the practice of forfeiting quota under the article a quo constitutes a concrete manifestation of the people being treated as mere objects of business.

He further added facts showing that only a few days after the petition was filed with the Constitutional Court, operators introduced a quota accumulation feature in their applications. In his view, this serves as clear evidence that the obstacles encountered thus far were not technical network issues, but rather manipulative business policies.

“Furthermore, [I] added an explanation regarding clear discriminatory practices [I] observed on social media, in that the accumulation feature is discriminatory in nature. This right is granted only to certain premium packages, while quota packages used solely for work and study purposes are forfeited,” the Petitioner explained.

Also read: Petitioner Questions Unilateral Forfeiture of Internet Quota

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, January 28, the Petitioner recounted that he had fully paid for an internet package but subsequently received a system notification stating that the 10 GB quota would be forfeited on January 4, 2026. Internet quota that was fully paid for by the Petitioner is, in essence, private property with economic value. However, due to the application of the contested provision, operators are granted discretion to seize such property through a unilateral “forfeiture” scheme without any compensation. This, according to the Petitioner, contravenes the principle of protection of property rights, which may not be arbitrarily deprived. In the Petitioner’s view, this situation creates acute legal uncertainty when compared to other energy sectors.

Accordingly, he requested that the Court declare Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “The determination of tariffs and service delivery schemes for telecommunications services must provide guarantees for the accumulation of remaining paid quota (data rollover)”; or “Any remaining quota purchased by consumers shall remain valid and usable for as long as the prepaid card remains active”; or “Any unused quota must be converted back into credit value or refunded proportionally to consumers upon the expiration of the package validity period.” 

Explore case No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
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.

---