Constitutional Court: Material Test of Internet Quota Elimination Cannot Be Accepted

The Constitutional Court (MK) has declared that a material test petition regarding the Internet quota elimination provision in the Job Creation Law cannot be accepted because it fails to meet the formal requirements for case submission.

“We declare Petition No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible,” said Constitutional Court Chief Suhartoyo whilst reading the court’s decision during a plenary hearing at the MK Building on Monday (2 March).

The petition tested the constitutionality of Article 71, number 2 of Law No. 6 of 2023 concerning the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law.

The petitioner, Rachmad Rofik, contended that the provision creates scope for telecommunications operators to unilaterally eliminate consumers’ remaining internet quotas.

Deputy Constitutional Court Chief Saldi Isra explained that through the preliminary examination hearing stage, the petitioner had failed to complete the petition with evidence as required under the Constitutional Court’s procedural law.

“Through the preliminary examination hearing with the agenda to examine petition improvements and evidence validation, the petitioner did not submit the petition supplemented with evidence,” Saldi stated.

Based on these facts, the Court determined that the petition failed to meet administrative and evidentiary requirements, although the MK has the authority to adjudicate constitutional law tests.

“There is no doubt for the Court to declare that the petition in question does not meet the formal requirements for petition submission,” he continued.

Due to the formal defect, the Court did not further consider the substantive arguments presented by the petitioner. The petition was thus declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard).

In his petition, the petitioner raised concerns about the practice of forfeiting internet quotas that consumers had already purchased. He claimed to have purchased a 10 GB quota outright but received notification that the quota would expire on a specific date.

According to the petitioner, internet quotas that had been paid for constitute personal property with economic value and therefore should not be unilaterally eliminated by operators.

The petitioner further contended that the provision contradicts the principle of property rights protection and creates legal uncertainty. He requested that the Court interpret the provision to mandate a data rollover mechanism or refund mechanisms in the form of prepaid credit or proportional refunds.

However, because the petition was found not to meet formal requirements, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the case or the constitutionality of the provision being tested.