The ruling hearing for Case No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Tuesday (5/12/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court has decided to declare Petition No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material 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 inadmissible. It declared the petition unclear. One of the reasons was that he failed to adequately elaborate the arguments demonstrating inconsistency between Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law and the provisions of the 1945 Constitution serving as the basis for review.

“There is no doubt for the Court to declare the petition a quo unclear, vague, or obscure,” stated Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra while reading out the Court’s legal considerations for Decision No. 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Tuesday, May 12, 2026.

In addition, in the section concerning jurisdiction, the Petitioner failed to comprehensively elaborate the legal basis for the Constitutional Court’s authority to review laws against the 1945 Constitution, as required under Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 concerning Procedure in Judicial Review Cases. In this regard, the Petitioner merely referred to Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the Constitutional Court Law, while adding the statement, “The Constitutional Court functions as the Guardian of the Constitution and the Protector of Citizens’ Constitutional Rights.”

Likewise, in the section concerning legal standing, the Petitioner merely listed the five requirements for constitutional impairment without relating them to the substance of the alleged constitutional harm. Furthermore, in the posita section (grounds for the petition), the Petitioner failed to adequately elaborate the arguments demonstrating inconsistency between Article 71 point 2 of Law No. 6 of 2023 and the constitutional provisions under the 1945 Constitution invoked as the basis for review.

Also read:

Job Creation Law Challenged for Not Guaranteeing Internet Data Rollover

Petitioner Challenging Forfeited Internet Quota Asks to Be Heard Alongside Similar Cases

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, March 9, the Petitioner said the fact that his remaining internet quota was unilaterally forfeited by the operator after exceeding time limit without any compensation 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 pays for a data package, a sale-and-purchase agreement occurs, in which ownership rights over the data (in gigabytes), are 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.

In the petitums, he 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.”

Read Decision 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.

---