Evidence Not Stamped: Constitutional Court Rejects Internet Quota Expiry Lawsuit
The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected a petition submitted by Rachmad Rofik regarding expired internet quotas. The lawsuit was dismissed because Rachmad failed to properly stamp the evidence documents.
Decision No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026 was read during a hearing held at the MK Building in Central Jakarta on Monday, 2 March 2026. The petitioner challenged Article 71 paragraph 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 (Job Creation Law).
The court found that the petitioner did not submit the petition with complete evidence documents through the preliminary examination hearing, which was scheduled to review the petition amendments and validate the evidence. Based on these facts, the MK stated that the petition did not meet the formal requirements for submission.
“Having examined the evidence submitted by the petitioner, which comprises evidence items P-1 through P-7, the Court has found that the petitioner’s evidence does not bear sufficient official stamps as valid evidence as required under Article 12 paragraph (3) of Ministry of Finance Regulation 7/2025, which states that online submission of petitions must be accompanied by submission of evidence documents in one copy bearing official stamps as prescribed by applicable legislation,” stated the MK.
“We declare Petition No. 30/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible,” announced MK Chief Suhartoyo in pronouncing the judgment.
Rachmad Rofik’s Lawsuit
During the preliminary examination hearing, the petitioner explained that he had purchased an internet quota in full. He later received a system notification that the 10 GB quota would expire on 4 January 2026.
The petitioner argued that the internet quota he had fully purchased constituted personal property with economic value. Due to the operation of this article, the petitioner contended that operators could seize this property right through a unilateral “expiry” scheme without any compensation.
The petitioner believed this violated the principle of property protection that should not be arbitrarily taken. According to the petitioner, there was significant legal uncertainty compared with other energy sectors.
Therefore, the petitioner requested that the MK declare Article 71 paragraph 2 of the Job Creation Law to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to:
— Require that tariff setting and telecommunications service delivery schemes guarantee the accumulation of remaining data quota (data rollover) that consumers have purchased
— Ensure that remaining data quotas purchased by consumers remain valid and can be used as long as the prepaid card is active
— Require that unused data quotas be converted back to credit value or refunded proportionally to consumers when the package validity period expires