Constitutional Court Rules Remaining Internet Quota Cannot Be Forfeited
The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that remaining internet quota purchased by consumers cannot be unilaterally forfeited by telecommunications operators. The court stated that internet quota is an intangible object with inherent private property rights, obliging the state to provide protection for those rights.
The ruling was read out in the hearing for case Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on Thursday, 23 July 2026.
“In real terms, unused quota must remain protected as the property of telecommunications service users, to be used until it is exhausted without being burdened by additional costs or tariffs under the pretext of extending the active period or for any other reason,” said Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir while reading the court’s considerations.
In its considerations, the Court assessed that remaining internet quota holds economic value because it is obtained through legitimate payment to the telecommunications operator. Therefore, the forfeiture of remaining quota without adequate protection contradicts the right to private property as guaranteed by Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
Through this ruling, the Court partially granted the petitioners’ request. The Court declared that Article 28 paragraph (1) as amended in the Annex to the Job Creation Law is unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that the determination of telecommunications service tariffs must be accompanied by the provision of service options that guarantee consumers’ remaining internet quota remains active and usable.
The Court emphasised that this ruling does not automatically require all internet packages to be valid indefinitely. Telecommunications operators may still offer various service schemes, including packages with or without rollover features, provided consumers are given service options that protect the remaining quota they have paid for.
Adies Kadir stated that such protection could be realised through various mechanisms, such as quota accumulation or rollover, extension of the active period, transfer of benefits, compensation, or other forms of protection. This provision applies to both prepaid and postpaid users who have remaining internet quota.
Case Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2026 was filed by three Indonesian citizens: Didi Supandi, Wahyu Triana Sari, and Rega Felix. They argued that the provisions in the Telecommunications Law did not provide adequate protection for consumer rights regarding remaining internet quota.