Experts warn that Right to be Forgotten in the HAM Bill must not threaten press freedom

REGULATION on the right to be forgotten in the draft Human Rights Bill (RUU HAM) is considered to require strict boundaries. Without clear limits, this rule could threaten press freedom and public interest in the digital sphere.

Researcher from Raksha Initiatives, Wahyudi Djafar, emphasises that the right to be forgotten should not be used as a tool to erase journalistic information that has become part of public consumption.

According to him, the basic concept of the right to be forgotten is not to delete all information from the internet, but to limit the appearance of certain information in search engines.

‘So journalistic information should not be disrupted because it is part of public information that is also protected in the name of public interest,’ he said on Friday (22/5).

Learning from European Practice

Wahyudi cites practices in Europe, particularly Germany. There, the implementation of the right to be forgotten still provides balanced protection for public interest and freedom of expression.

However in Indonesia, implementation is seen as problematic. The main reason is the absence of clear boundaries on which parties must carry out information deletions.

‘Are all electronic system providers, or only search engines? The technical rules are also problematic,’ he said.

Mechanism of Courts

Wahyudi explains that the regulation of the right to be forgotten is actually already listed in Article 26 Paragraph 3 of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and is further regulated in Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019 (PP 71/2019). Under these rules, requests for information deletion must be issued via a court decision.

Nevertheless, the existing mechanism is considered not adequately taking into account the public interest element attached to information.

‘We must test which is stronger, protecting public interest or protecting the personal data of the applicant for the right to be forgotten,’ he said.

He regards the draft HAM as carrying an important development because it explicitly states the protection of public interest and freedom of expression as a ‘safeguard’ in the implementation of the right to be forgotten.

‘In this draft of the HAM law, it states that it must protect public interest and freedom of expression. The wording is as such,’ he said.

According to Wahyudi, this clause is crucial because it has not been stated decisively in Article 26 Paragraph 3 of the UU ITE. He hopes the new regulation could become the basis for revising technical rules, including PP 71 of 2019.

Journalistic Sphere and Press Disputes

Furthermore, Wahyudi emphasises that the application of the right to be forgotten should not apply to all electronic system providers, particularly mass media that publish journalistic works.

‘People cannot request deletion of information when the information is journalistic. That is clear in PP 71 of 2019,’ he said.

He adds that disputes related to journalistic reporting should be resolved through the mechanisms of Dewan Pers, not through the right-to-be-forgotten scheme.

‘If it is journalistic information, please settle disputes via the Dewan Pers, not through this mechanism,’ he said.

Wahyudi also highlights the still-weak definition of ‘public interest’ within Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection Act (UU PDP). Unlike the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, which includes journalism as part of public interest, Indonesian rules are considered to be limited to public interests of state administration.

‘If in the GDPR, public interest includes journalism. Here it does not,’ he said.

Technical Execution Challenges

He also mentions several criminal verdicts that include the phrase ‘right to be forgotten’ for defendants acquitted. He argues this raises new questions about technical implementation in the digital space.

‘Does it mean the news must be deleted? Or is it sufficient that it is not displayed in search engines? These rules have not been detailed yet,’ he said.

Therefore, he urges the government to clarify technical boundaries for applying the right to be forgotten, including determining which digital platforms are obliged to implement the regulation.

‘In Europe, only search engines are obliged. There is no pretension to delete information that has become public information,’ he concluded. (Dev/P-2)

Special Staff to the Minister of Human Rights, Thomas Harming Suwarta, highlights dynamics of human rights on social media and the plan for the HAM Bill that includes the right to be forgotten.

The inclusion of the Right to be Forgotten in the HAM Bill has drawn attention. Kaka Suminta warns of the risk of erasing the digital footprints of public officials and the transparency agenda.

Transparency International Indonesia assesses that corruption has deprived citizens of basic rights.

The idea is interesting to consider in drafting the HAM Law revision, because corruption indeed has a dimension that damages human rights.

Mugiyanto states that the process of revising the HAM Law is an important step in strengthening Indonesia’s national human rights protection system to be more adaptive to changing times.

He notes that the 160-page report demonstrates how citizen criticisms can continue to be dismissed by labelling them as foreign-backed.

AMNESTY International Indonesia regards the conviction of Laras Faizati in a case of incitement related to demonstrations in August 2025 as a form of criminalisation of freedom of expression.

PKS general secretary Muhammad Kholid regards Pandji Pragiwaksono’s criticism via stand-up comedy as a normal democratic dynamic that should be responded to calmly.

Founder Indonesian Cyber Muannas Alaidid condemns Pandji Pragiwaksono’s stand-up material that touched on prayer and is assessed as exceeding the limits of freedom of expression.

Freedom of opinion on social media is a real manifestation of democracy in the digital era.