Constitutional Court Defines “Riots” in ITE Law
On April 29, 2025, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (the “Court“) rendered its decision towards Case No. 115/PUU-XXII/2024 (the “Decision”). The case was submitted and examined for the judicial review of the Indonesian Criminal Code (the “ICC”) and Law No. 11 of 2008 dated April 21, 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions as lastly amended by Law No. 1 of 2024 dated January 2, 2024 (collectively, the “ITE Law”).
The petitioner Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, S.H. (the “Petitioner”), sought judicial review of Article 310(3) of the ICC and Article 27(1) in conjunction with Article 45(1), Article 28(3) in conjunction with Article 45A(3), Article 45(2), and Article 45(7) of the ITE Law. The Petitioner contended that these provisions have been used to violate his constitutional rights according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (the “Constitution”) and as such deems them to be in direct conflict with the Constitution.
We set out below the key arguments of the Petitioner and the Decision of the Court.
♦ Petitioner’s Argument
The Petitioner submitted the following provisions to the Court for judicial review, which contains phrases that the Petitioner deems unconstitutional.
♦ Court Decision
Considering the Petitioner’s argument, the Court acknowledges that the phrase “causes a riot in the public” is vague and unclear. The Court then partially grants the petition by ruling that the phrase “riot in the public” found in Article 28(3) and Article 45A(3) of the ITE Law must be interpreted as “a condition that disrupts public order in physical spaces, not in digital or cyber spaces,” while the remainder of the petition is denied.
♦ Impact of Decision
The Court’s Decision clarifies that “riots” as mentioned in Article 28(3) and Article 45A(3) of the ITE Law refer to disturbances that occur in physical spaces, not in digital or cyber spaces. This should provide legal certainty, give clear interpretive guidance for legal practitioners, law enforcement authorities, and the public in applying the provisions, and should also prevent arbitrary interpretations or improper usage of the provisions in cases involving conduct in the digital or cyber space.
AKSET
Please contact Johannes C. Sahetapy-Engel (jsahetapyengel@aksetlaw.com), Mochamad Fatih Satria Kasmaliputra (mkasmaliputra@aksetlaw.com), or Giorgio Alexander William Robot (grobot@aksetlaw.com) for further information.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing material is the property of AKSET and may not be used by any other party without prior written consent. The information herein is of general nature and should not be treated as legal advice, nor shall it be relied upon by any party for any circumstance. Specific legal advice should be sought by interested parties to address their particular circumstances.
Any links contained in this document are for informational purposes and are available and relevant at time this publication is made. We provide no liability whatsoever in respect of any information or content in such links.
