Internet Quota Petitioners: No More Unilateral Forfeiture
Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, lawyer for the petitioners in case number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025, has welcomed the Constitutional Court’s ruling that Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law, which amended Article 28 of the Telecommunications Law, is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
“Today we can all see that the Constitutional Court has once again carried out its function and role as The Guardian of the Constitution and The Protector of Citizens’ Constitutional Rights in case 273/2025,” Viktor said in a written message on Thursday (23 July).
In its ruling, the Court provided protection, affirmation and legal certainty establishing, in essence, that internet quota is an intangible asset owned by the user and cannot be unilaterally seized (forfeited).
“This means that after this Constitutional Court ruling, there can be no more practice of unilaterally forfeiting remaining quota by telecommunications service providers (operators), because such practice constitutes a violation of the constitution,” Viktor said.
He regarded the ruling as a victory for the petitioners, who are online motorcycle taxi (ojol) drivers and online culinary traders.
“We dedicate this victory to all the Indonesian people as internet quota users, especially online workers for whom quota is their ‘business capital’, which has all this time been forcibly taken (forfeited) unilaterally by telecommunications service providers,” Viktor said.
“This victory is a victory for all Indonesian society, which has all this time been harmed by the practice of internet quota being forfeited,” he added.
Previously, the Constitutional Court partially granted the petition of online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi, online culinary trader Wahyu Triana Sari, and lecturer and advocate Rega Felix concerning the policy of internet quota expiring even when not fully used.
“The ruling: one, grants the petitioners’ request in part,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, reading the ruling at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on Thursday (23 July).
The Court ordered that this ruling be published in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate.
“Rejecting the petitioners’ request for anything beyond this,” he continued.
Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir said the norm of Article 28 paragraph 1 in Article 71 point 2 of the Annex to Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation does not yet regulate guarantees for telecommunications service users’ property rights over the benefits of unused internet quota.
On that basis, the norm in question must be declared inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force conditionally, insofar as it is not interpreted as: “The amount of tariffs for telecommunications network operators and/or telecommunications service providers shall be determined by the network operators and/or service providers based on a formula set by the Central Government, with the obligation to provide telecommunications service options that guarantee that the remaining quota belonging to telecommunications service users remains active and usable.”
“The petitioners’ arguments are well-founded. However, because the Court’s interpretation differs from what was requested, the petitioners’ petition is legally justified in part,” Adies said.