Expert: Internet Service Practices Comply with Legal Obligations

An expert presented by the government in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Agung Harsoyo, stated that the practice of providing mobile internet services has so far been carried out in accordance with the obligations mandated by the law. He said the implementation of each party’s obligations should be viewed holistically from the entire series of legal norms, industry practices, consumer interests, and the role of the state. “At the same time, the parties have obtained legitimate benefits according to their respective roles, whether the state, operators, or consumers,” Agung said during a plenary session at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday. In other words, he stated there is no exploitative relationship, but rather a reciprocal and mutually beneficial one. The state, in this case the Ministry of Communication and Digitalisation as the regulator, has carried out its obligations. He explained that the Telecommunications Law does not instruct the government to design every service package sold by operators, but rather to establish a regulatory framework, regulate tariff formulas, protect users, supervise telecommunications operations, and maintain healthy competition. He said these obligations have been implemented through Government Regulation Number 46 of 2021, Minister of Communication and Informatics Regulation Number 5 of 2021, Minister of Communication and Informatics Decree Number 576 of 2022, the regulation of tariff formulas, tariff reporting mechanisms by operators, periodic supervision, and various user protection instruments. Agung revealed that operators have similarly fulfilled their obligations, including building networks, expanding service coverage, increasing capacity, providing various service product options, conveying terms and conditions of service, reporting tariffs to the government as the regulator, and competing to offer increasingly better and more affordable services. Meanwhile, he continued, consumers have obtained their rights in the form of access to communication, internet access, diverse service choices, tariff information and certainty, transparency of service terms, and the freedom to choose products that suit their needs. He emphasised that customers who need cheap rates can choose certain packages, while customers who need higher flexibility can choose rollover or postpaid plans. Therefore, he conveyed that the right to obtain information and the right to choose are available, so consumer protection has been implemented through transparency and freedom of choice. “However, there remains room to improve consumer protection, both in terms of transparency and variety of service choices,” he said. Agung, a lecturer at the Bandung Institute of Technology’s School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics who also serves as Head of the Information Technology Division at Perum Bulog, provided expert testimony in cases Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 and 33/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petitioners in both cases are challenging Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law. This article, which amends Article 28 of Law Number 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications, regulates telecommunications tariffs. Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law contains two points: first, the amount of tariffs for telecommunications network and/or service provision is determined by the network and/or service providers based on a formula set by the central government. Second, the central government may set upper and/or lower tariff limits for telecommunications provision by considering public interest and fair business competition. In case Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025, online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi and online culinary trader Wahyu Triana Sari are challenging the system of forfeiting unused internet quota when the active period expires. The petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court interpret Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law to mean: The determination of tariffs and service provision schemes must guarantee the accumulation of remaining data quota that has been paid for by consumers. Meanwhile, the petitioner in case Number 33/PUU-XXIV/2026, student TB Yaumul Hasan Hidayat, is also challenging the same article. Yaumul argued that internet quota affects online learning, so the unilateral deletion of quota without proper consent and compensation contradicts the principles of legal certainty and justice. In his petition, Yaumul requested that Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law be amended to state that internet quota already paid for by consumers cannot be deleted or forfeited unilaterally, and if a validity period is set, it must be accompanied by a fair, transparent, and proportional mechanism to guarantee legal certainty and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.