The Petitioners, students of the Faculty of Law at Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, present the principal arguments in their petition challenging Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation (Job Creation Law) via virtual hearing before the Constitutional Court’s panel, Wednesday (05/20/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Five students have filed a judicial review challenging the regulation on telecommunications network service tariffs (internet data quotas) as provided under Article 71 point 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation (Job Creation Law) in conjunction with Article 28 of Law Number 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications (Telecommunications Law). The five Petitioners in Case Number 165/PUU-XXIV/2026 are Rosyid Arifin, Benedictus Klaus Brandon Arya Setya, Nico Ferdian, Gita Putri Akhyun, and Novarinda Benti Dahu. The preliminary hearing for the petition was held on Wednesday (05/20/2026) in the Constitutional Court’s Panel Hearing Room.
Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law provides:
“Several provisions of Law Number 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications are amended as follows: 2. Article 28 is amended to read as follows: (1) The amount of tariffs for Telecommunications Network Operations and/or Telecommunications Service Operations shall be determined by the telecommunications network and/or telecommunications service operators based on a formula established by the Central Government. (2) The Central Government may determine upper and/or lower tariff limits for telecommunications operations by taking into account the public interest and fair business competition.”
During the hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Suhartoyo, principal Petitioner Gita Putri argued that the provision places consumers in a vulnerable position in their legal relationship with business operators, particularly regarding internet data quotas that have already been purchased but cannot be fully utilized due to the expiration of the service period.
In the absence of explicit and clear regulation protecting remaining internet data quotas, the Petitioners argue that this condition creates legal uncertainty in violation of the rule of law principle as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), because consumers are denied certainty regarding their rights over services they have already paid for.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the challenged provision contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).
“Declare that the a quo provision is contrary to Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia because it fails to guarantee protection of consumers’ private property rights over purchased internet data quotas, which possess economic value and may be unilaterally lost without a fair legal basis,” Novarinda Benti Dahu stated while reading one of the petition’s requests.
Judicial Advice
During the advisory session, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah observed that the petition remained vague and required substantial revision in accordance with Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025, rather than Constitutional Court Regulation Number 2 of 2021.
“Your petition still appears vague, and many aspects need improvement. Please review Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025, not Regulation Number 2 of 2021,” Guntur said.
Guntur also advised the Petitioners to revisit the 45-day deadline applicable to formal judicial review petitions following the enactment of a law. Regarding legal standing, he emphasized that each Petitioner must explain their respective constitutional harm unless they all share the same constitutional injury. Such legal standing, he noted, must be directly connected to the constitutional harm arising from the enforcement of the challenged provision.
“Your legal standing must explain its connection to the challenged provision regarding internet data quotas, so that a causal relationship is clearly established,” Guntur stated.
Regarding the legal reasoning section, Guntur advised the Petitioners to clearly explain how the challenged provision conflicts with the Constitution.
“The primary task is to explain how the provision is contrary to the Constitution. You must clearly describe where the contradiction lies or how it conflicts with constitutional provisions,” he said.
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh further stated that the petition required a complete restructuring to align with the systematic format prescribed by Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025. Daniel also asked the Petitioners to clarify whether they were filing a formal judicial review or a substantive judicial review, given that formal review petitions are subject to statutory filing deadlines.
Daniel also noted an apparent error in the petition’s wording.
“In the petitum, you actually mention Law Number 3 of 2004 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 6 of 2014 on Villages,” Daniel remarked.
He further observed that some of the challenged norms had already been the subject of Constitutional Court rulings, while others were currently under examination.
Daniel also advised the Petitioners to elaborate on their legal standing and explain the constitutional harm suffered as a result of the challenged provision.
“The Petitioners should systematically and clearly explain how the a quo provision conflicts with the Constitution by grouping the arguments according to the constitutional provisions used as the basis for review,” Daniel added.
Before closing the hearing, Suhartoyo informed the Petitioners that they had up to 14 working days to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted no later than Tuesday (06/02/2026) at 12:00 p.m. WIB.
Author : Ilham W.M.
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Agusweka PS.
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 prevails.
Case Track: Number 165/PUU-XXIV/2026
Wednesday, May 20, 2026 | 19:24 WIB 44