Internet Quota Petitioners: No More Unilateral Forfeiture

The lawyer for the judicial review petition in case number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025, Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, welcomed the Constitutional Court’s ruling that Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law, which amended Article 28 of the Telecommunications Law, contradicts 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 via written message on Thursday (23/7). In its ruling, the Court provided protection, affirmation, and legal certainty, essentially stating that internet quota is an intangible asset that is the property of the user and cannot be seized unilaterally. “This means that after this Constitutional Court ruling, there can no longer be a practice of unilaterally forfeiting remaining quota by telecommunications service providers because such a practice is a form of constitutional violation,” Viktor stated. He considered the ruling a victory for the petitioners, who are online motorcycle taxi drivers and online food vendors. “We dedicate this victory to all Indonesian people as internet quota users, especially online workers who use quota as ‘business capital’ that has been forcibly taken by telecommunications service providers,” Viktor said. “This victory is a victory for all Indonesian people who have been harmed by the practice of forfeiting remaining internet quota,” he added. Previously, the Constitutional Court partially granted the petition filed by online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi, online food vendor Wahyu Triana Sari, and lecturer and advocate Rega Felix regarding the policy of internet quota expiring before it is fully used. “The verdict. Adjudicates: one, grants the Petitioners’ petition in part,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo while reading the verdict at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on Thursday (23/7). The Court ordered the inclusion of this ruling in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate. “Rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the remainder,” he continued. Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir explained that the norm of Article 28 paragraph 1 in Article 71 point 2 of the Appendix to Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation had not regulated the guarantee of the property rights of telecommunications service users over unused internet quota benefits. On that basis, the a quo norm must be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as: “The tariff rates for the operation of telecommunications networks and/or telecommunications services are determined by the telecommunications network and/or service providers based on a formula determined by the Central Government with the obligation to provide telecommunications service options that guarantee the remaining quota belonging to telecommunications service users remains active and can be used.” “The Petitioners’ argument is well-founded. However, because the Court’s interpretation is not as requested, the Petitioners’ petition is legally grounded in part,” Adies stated.