The Petitioner’s counsels at the second hearing for the amendment to the Telecommunication Law by the Job Creation Law in Case No. 33/PUU-XXIV/2026, Tuesday (2/10/2026). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

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, as it amends Article 28 of Law No. 36 on Telecommunications. The petition revision hearing, taking place on Tuesday, February 10, 2026 in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms, was presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (chair), Anwar Usman, and Asrul Sani.

The Petitioner’s counsel Mivan Pattiwangi presented the revisions to the petition, which include that to the elaboration of the Court’s jurisdictions not yet mentioned in the initial petition, following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on the Procedure for Judicial Review.

“We have also elaborated on [the Petitioner’s] loss and legal standing, Your Honors,” Pattiwangi explained.

He also conveyed that there has been comparison to other countries in the posita (rationale) section as well as contradiction between the norm under review and the constitutional benchmark.

Also read: Student Questions Internet Quota Forfeiture Without Compensation

In Case No. 33/PUU-XXIV/2026, it is said that university student TB Yaumul Hasan Hidayat has been undergoing online learning for his education. Accordingly, internet access constitutes a primary and indispensable means for the fulfillment of his right to education and self-development. The internet quota he purchased has economic value and constitutes a legitimate right to digital access.

In addition, the Petitioner is of the view that internet quotas constitute economic rights and digital access rights with proprietary value, and therefore fall within the protection of property rights. Any unilateral forfeiture of quotas without consent and adequate compensation is considered contrary to the principles of legal certainty and justice.

On this basis, the Petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court declare Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that “internet quotas that have been paid for by consumers may not be deleted or forfeited unilaterally, and where a validity period is imposed, it must be accompanied by a fair, transparent, and proportional mechanism to ensure legal certainty and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights,” or that “any limitation on the validity period of internet data services must be regulated in a clear, transparent, and fair manner, and must not result in the loss of the utility value of quotas that have been paid for by consumers without proportional compensation.”

Explore case No. 33/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Utami Argawati
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.

---