Commission i There is no plan for reviewing the ITE Act after the decision of the Constitutional Court

Jakarta – Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Commission I Dave Laksono responded to the ruling of the Constitutional Court (MK) related to the exception of the government, corporate, profession and posts of those who could report alleged slander as stipulated in the Information and Electronic Transaction Act (ITS Act). Dave said the decision of the Constitutional Court is final and binding. “Yes, it was decided by the Constitutional Court, it is already final and binding. We just followed it, we just adjust it in regulating the law,” Dave said Wednesday (4/30/2025). However, Dave said that so far there have been no plans to review the IDE Act after the decision of the Constitutional Court. He said the results of the decision could be adjusted by the rules under the Act. Browse to continue with the content “No (review of the Act). There is no agenda for review. This can apply directly. Most only the one to be adjusted,” he said. The ruling of the Constitutional Court is known, the Constitutional Court said that only individual victims can deliver reports of alleged slander. It is said in the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 105/Puu-XXII/2024 seen on Wednesday (30/4). The decision was read Tuesday (29/4). In his request, the requester named Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan. In his petitum, Daniel sued section 27A of the Law, section 45 paragraph (4) of the ITE Act, section 28 paragraph (2) of the ITE Act, to section 45A paragraph (2) of the ITE Act. The applicant believes that the articles did not provide legal certainty related to the handling of ITS matters, especially not slander. He asked the MK to change the articles. The Constitutional Court then granted part of Daniel’s lawsuit related to Article 27A, Article 45 paragraph (4), section 28 paragraph (2), and section 45a paragraph (2). The following is the content of the articles that Daniel sued before being changed by the Constitutional Court: Article 27A: All deliberately attack the honor or good name of others by accusing a thing, with the intention that it is commonly known in the form of electronic information and/ or electronic documents performed by an electronic system. Article 28: (2) all deliberately and without the right to distribute and/or transfer electronic information and/or electronic documents, inviting or influencing others, causing a sense of hatred or hostility of certain individuals and/or groups of communities based on race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, religion, faith, gender, spiritual disability, or physical disability. Article 45: (4) Any person who deliberately attacks the honor or good name of another person by accusing a thing, with the intention that it is known in the form of electronic information and/ or electronic documents performed by an electronic system, as referred to in section 27A with a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and/ or a maximum fine of RP. 400,000,000. Article 45A: (2) Each person who deliberately and without the right to distribute and/or transfer electronic information and/or electronic documents, or others to cause a sense of hatred or hostility of the maximum individual and/or group of community, based on race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, religion, faith, gender, spiritual, or unnoticed, as in Article 28 (a maximum penalty of RP. 1,000,000,000. proportional to be given and not cause excessive concern for the space of civil freedom. The Constitutional Court then described its considerations related to the phrase ‘other people’ in the slander of the article, often considered ‘rubber article’. The Constitutional Court said in substance that section 27A of the ITE Act and section 433 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act in 2023 have the same substance. However, Section 27a of the ITE Act does not have an explanation such as the penal code that declares defamation only applies if the victim is an individual, not a government institution or a group of people. “Because there is an unclear limit of the phrase ‘other people’ in section 27A of the Act 1/2024 that is attacked by honor or good name, the norm of Article a quo is vulnerable to be abused,” the court said. (AMW/WHN) HOEGENG Awards 2025 Read the inspiring story of the exemplary police candidate here