Internet Quota Expiry Challenged in Constitutional Court, Petitioners Cite Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution

Wed, 25 Feb 2026, 18:08 WIB | By Cahya Mulyana | Source: MEDIA_INDONESIA | Regulation

The implementation of the internet quota expiry scheme is being challenged in the Constitutional Court (MK) once again. This time, the challenge concerns not only the regulations in the Telecommunications Law but also the provisions in the Consumer Protection Law.

The petitioners in this case are an online motorcycle taxi driver and an NGO called Deconstitute. This lawsuit is registered with the MK under case number 68/PUU-XXIV/2026.

According to the Executive Director of Deconstitute, Harimurti Adi Nugroho, the issues of tariffs and internet quota expiry are not just telecommunications service issues, but also issues of consumer protection and the economic rights of citizens.

“The issues of tariffs and internet quotas are indeed related to the telecommunications law. However, in the Consumer Protection Law, there is a prohibition for business actors to reduce the benefits of goods or services to consumers unilaterally based on standard clauses. So, we are bringing both laws to the MK. There are provisions that potentially violate the economic rights of citizens,” he said on Wednesday (February 25).

This lawsuit also touches on the polemic in the public sphere regarding whether internet quota is included as property rights over goods or access rights to services. The petitioners state that the norms of the Consumer Protection Law they are testing actually end this debate.

Because, this law explicitly states the prohibition of reducing the benefits of goods or services to consumers unilaterally. So that the property rights over the internet quota that has been purchased, as well as the right to access the internet service, must both be protected.

“Actually, there is no need to debate about the concept of property rights over goods versus access rights to services. Because, both are protected and cannot be reduced unilaterally, let alone eliminated. That is why we also brought the Consumer Protection Law. To make the interpretation clearer. In fact, the MK may even interpret the phrase ‘property rights’ broadly as the right to ownership of access that has been purchased and paid for in full,” said Harimurti.

In addition, the petitioners link the issue of internet quota expiry to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, because telecommunications services and internet access are now a basic need for many people.

In the era of the digital economy, internet quota can no longer be seen as an ordinary commodity. But rather a basic need for millions of people, from online motorcycle taxi drivers, MSME actors, students, to informal sector workers to work, study, and access public services. “In the petition, we deliberately mentioned Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution because this internet quota issue concerns the basic needs of the people. We encourage that this area be controlled by the state and managed proportionally for the welfare of the people. So if this is granted by the MK, it will actually benefit not only the community, but also the government,” he explained.

In this lawsuit, the petitioners ask the MK to provide a clear constitutional interpretation so that consumer protection and the principle of economic democracy are truly reflected in the practice of providing telecommunications services.

Harimurti revealed that Deconstitute is indeed focused on the issue of constitutional economics. According to him, the practice of internet quota expiry is an example of how problematic regulations have a major impact on the economic rights of citizens.

“Deconstitute and the ojol driver filed this judicial review because they did experience constitutional losses. In addition, Deconstitute is also concerned about the issue of constitutional economics,” he said.

As is known, currently there are at least four cases related to internet quota expiry that are being tried in the MK. The petitioners basically question the system of eliminating unused internet quota when the quota’s validity period expires by the telecommunications service provider or operator.

The petitioners include a student from the Open University, an ojol driver and his wife who are online traders, and a resident of Gresik, East Java. This polemic continues to emerge because the internet is now considered a basic need that is equal to water, electricity, and fuel. (Des/P-3)

The Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) affirmed that military courts are not a space for impunity in the hearing on the judicial review of the Military Justice Law in the Constitutional Court.

The provisions of the KPK Law, which are considered to open up opportunities for active members of the TNI and Polri to serve as leaders of the KPK, were challenged in the Constitutional Court because they were considered ambiguous.

Ojol drivers and legal institutions challenged the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law and the Job Creation Law to the Constitutional Court regarding the practice of prepaid internet quota expiring without compensation.

The Constitutional Court held a judicial review of the 2026 APBN Law regarding allegations of budget cuts for education due to the inclusion of the Nutritious Food program.

The CONSTITUTIONAL Court (MK) highlighted the practice of prepaid internet quota expiring, which is considered to be treated differently from prepaid electricity tokens, which do not have an expiration date.

The MK highlighted the practice of internet quota expiring, which is considered to potentially violate people’s rights. Saldi Isra questioned the legal basis and state responsibility.

The government affirmed that internet quota expiring is not a violation of the law in the MK hearing regarding the judicial review of the Job Creation Law.

The DPR affirmed that internet quota expiring is not regulated by the Job Creation Law, but rather the realm of contracts between operators and customers in the MK hearing.

View JSON | Print