The Petitioner at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Job Creation Law regarding forfeiture of internet quota, Monday (3/9/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Rachmad Rofik has filed for the constitutional 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 to the Constitutional Court. He believes that current internet tariff formulation is constitutionally flawed, as it does not guarantee accumulation or rollover of remaining quota.

“I have paid for data package in full as my property, but the remaining quota was unilaterally forfeited by the operator after exceeding time limit, without any compensation,” said the Petitioner in Case No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the preliminary hearing on Monday, March 9, 2026, which he attended remotely.

He believes this is a violation of his constitutional right of to personal property, which is guaranteed under Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution. He explained that when he paid for a data package, a sale-and-purchase agreement occurs, in which ownership rights over the data (in gigabytes), were transferred from the operator to him. He argued that the operator’s practice of forfeiting remaining quota that has already been fully paid constitutes an arbitrary appropriation of private property rights without compensation.

Article 71 point 2 of Law No. 6 of 2023, which amends Article 28 of Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunicaitons, stipulates that: “(1) The tariffs for the provision of Telecommunications Networks and/or Telecommunications Services shall be determined by the providers of Telecommunications Networks and/or Services based on a formula established by the Central Government. (2) The Central Government may set upper and/or lower tariff limits for the provision of Telecommunications Services by considering public interest and fair business competition.”

In the petitums, the Petitioner requested the Court to 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 the scheme for the provision of telecommunications services must guarantee the accumulation of remaining data quota (data rollover) that has been fully paid by consumers so that it does not expire as long as the prepaid card remains active.”

The petition was heard by a panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Adies Kadir. During the advisory session, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated that the Petitioner may elaborate arguments demonstrating that the petition differs from previous petitions and therefore does not fall within the category of ne bis in idem.

“Matters that has already been submitted for review before the Court cannot be filed again unless there are different reasons or constitutional grounds for review,” he stated.

Before adjourning the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition only once. The revised petition must have been received by the Court no later than 12:00 WIB on Wednesday, March 25, 2026.

Explore case No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---