Constitutional Court grills mobile operators over internet quota expiry controversy

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Justices of the Constitutional Court (MK) grilled the association of telecommunications providers and several mobile operators as related parties in a petition for judicial review of the Job Creation Law concerning the controversy over expiring internet quotas.

Eight of the nine attending Constitutional Court justices questioned the parties regarding the statements they provided in the case at the MK Building courtroom in Jakarta on Thursday.

Constitutional Court Justice Adies Kadir was the first to ask questions, directed at each provider (Telkomsel, XL, Indosat) and the All-Indonesia Telecommunications Providers Association (ATSI).

“Please simulate what is meant by the burden that results in losses due to unused quotas,” Adies asked.

He also requested additional clarification from Telkomsel regarding access rights, stating that unused quotas up to the time limit do not benefit the provider. According to him, managing an internet business must certainly be profitable, so it needs to be explained where the profits come from, to allow the court to decide carefully.

Adies also asked where the remaining unused quotas go once the time limit expires. He further inquired whether the internet services provided by PLN are the same as those of other providers.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Justice Asrul Sani asked the providers what the harm would be if the petitioners’ request regarding expiring internet quotas were granted by the MK.

“So when there are product variants like this, it means there is an opportunity for accumulation,” Asrul said.

Constitutional Court Justice Ridwan Masyur stated that internet needs have become a basic necessity for all society, from young to old, for work, education, business, and more.

However, according to him, regulations that cause quotas to expire just like that when the validity period ends result in harm to one party, namely internet service users.

Ridwan emphasised the importance of sitting together to find solutions to the expiring quota problem, and the need for socialisation. Thus, the norm being tested is not merely about right or wrong.

According to him, where is the justice if internet quotas bought by the public with a certain amount and time limit? For example, buying a quota with a 30-day validity period, but it runs out in 28 days. If over a year the public buys 12 times, but if the limit is only 28 days, then they must buy 13 times in a year.

“Do providers understand what tariffs are? It’s not just a price, but an abbreviation for good governance principles, good corporate principles. So this fairness issue needs to be explored in depth,” said Guntur.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Justice Daniel Yusmic P Foek asked the parties to explain the internet network infrastructure needs mentioned in their statements, that the costs incurred are also related to building a large internet network infrastructure.

Daniel wanted to know how large the infrastructure development costs are, such that the government regulates upper and lower quota tariff prices in a certain way.

In line with that, Constitutional Court Justice Enney Nurbaningsih also posed the same question she had previously directed at the government as regulator in the previous hearing, regarding where the accumulated money from paid quotas is allocated by each provider.

A firm question was posed by Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra, emphasising that the internet has become a matter of public concern, not a commodity but a service.

Even though the providers do not profit from expired leftover quotas, there are citizens who are harmed by the expiry of internet quotas.

He asked the providers to explain what innovations could be made so that service users are not disadvantaged.

“So the matter of public concern binds you brothers (providers) not to freely determine everything. That’s what needs to be considered,” Saldi said.

It was explained that the sale and purchase of internet quotas is the sale and purchase of access rights, and its framework is contractual (contract agreement). Regarding this, where is the benchmark (reference), has Indonesia ratified any international agreements or is this a domestic regulation, and who determines it.

“This regime comes from where it was obtained. Please provide the international reference if there is one. So we don’t buy a ‘cat in a bag’, so to speak. So this is clear, that it’s not only applicable in Indonesia,” he said.

After hearing the statements from the providers, the MK has scheduled a continuation hearing to hear additional statements from the association, providers, and PLN on Monday (4/5).

The Constitutional Court held a continuation hearing to hear statements from the association, providers, and PLN for petition number 33/PUU-XXIV/2026. In addition, parties from petition number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 were also present in the trial.