Evidentiary Requirements in Review of the ITE Law: MK 244/PUU-XXIV/2026

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia decided case 244/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 30 July 2026, a material review of Article 27A and Article 45(4) of Law 1/2024, the Second Amendment to Law 11/2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, against the 1945 Constitution. Five petitioners brought the case: Nova Ayu Br Simanjuntak, Diva Maharani Dewiantoro, Trilas Pilda Faulisa, Marsha Widya Asmoro and Malik Fahad. The Court confirmed that it held authority to hear the petition, but it did not reach the constitutional questions raised, resolving the case instead on the formal requirements that govern the filing of a petition for statutory review.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first recorded the basis of its own authority: Article 24C(1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) of Law 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law 7/2020, and Article 29(1)(a) of Law 48/2009 on Judicial Power. Because the petition sought review of statutory norms against the Constitution, in this instance Article 27A and Article 45(4) of Law 1/2024, the Court held itself competent to adjudicate.

The reasoning then turned to the record of the filing itself. The petition was dated 23 April 2026 and lodged online, reaching the Court on 22 June 2026 under filing deed 243/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/06/2026 of the same date. From the checklist of filing completeness the Court noted that the petitioners had submitted the petition as a .pdf and as a .doc or .docx file, but without a list of evidence and without any evidence to support it.

A preliminary hearing followed on 6 July 2026, convened to hear the substance of the petition and to examine the completeness and clarity of its material. Acting under Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 36(3) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases, the Court advised the petitioners to correct and complete their petition by clarifying the Court's authority, their legal standing, the grounds of the petition and the relief sought, so that each conformed to the systematics prescribed by that regulation. It further advised them to attach evidence in support of their arguments. The petitioners were told they had fourteen days from 6 July 2026, that is until 12.00 WIB on 20 July 2026, to submit a signed corrected petition together with evidence.

Nothing arrived. By that deadline the petitioners had filed no corrected petition, no list of evidence and no evidence. On 20 July 2026 at 14.48 WIB the Court convened a further preliminary hearing to examine the corrected petition and to validate evidence. The petitioners did not appear, although they had been properly summoned by Court letter 1063.244/PUU/PAN.MK/PS/07/2026 of 14 July 2026, and no evidence was submitted to the Court.

Against those facts the Court set out the governing formal rules. Article 10(4) of Regulation 7/2025 provides that a filing shall be accompanied by evidence and by a list of the evidence supporting the petition. Article 12(3) adds that an online filing shall be accompanied by delivery to the Court of one copy of the evidence file bearing the stamp duty required by law. The petitioners had produced no evidence with their original petition, had filed no correction, and had attached no supporting evidence of the kind the regulation requires.

The Court then drew the consequence narrowly. Even though the petitioners submitted no correction, and the Court could have considered the original petition as filed, the absence of valid evidence after advice had been given to supply it left the Court in no doubt that the petition failed to satisfy the formal requirements for filing a statutory review. Since those requirements were unmet, the Court declined to consider the petition further, and treated the remaining matters as lacking relevance.

The Ruling

The Court's conclusions were that it had authority to adjudicate the petition, that the petition did not meet the formal requirements for filing, and that it would not be considered further. The operative order reads: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima" — the petition is declared inadmissible. The decision was taken in a judges' deliberative session on 21 July 2026 by nine constitutional justices, Suhartoyo presiding, sitting with Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, Ridwan Mansyur, Arsul Sani, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, M. Guntur Hamzah, Adies Kadir and Liliek Prisbawono Adi, and was pronounced in an open plenary session on 30 July 2026.

Because the case ended on the form of the filing, Article 27A and Article 45(4) of Law 1/2024 were not examined on their substance and remain in force in their existing terms. The constitutional objections directed at those two provisions were not settled by this decision, and a fresh petition on the same norms would begin again at the filing stage.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.