Skip to content
ai-generated

Notice Before Blocking Online Content Under the ITE Law: MK 311/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 18 October 2026 Machine-drafted

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) decided case 311/PUU-XXIV/2026, a material review of Article 40(2b) of Law 1 of 2024, the Second Amendment to Law 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (the ITE Law). The provision empowers the Government to cut off access to electronic information or documents with unlawful content, or to order electronic system operators to do so. The petition was brought by seven individuals: Matthew Febrian Otniel Lambok Hutasoit, Muhammad Farzha Putra, Kaleb Otniel Aritonang, Angela Anggia Ramoti Hutasoit, Muhammad Yakub, Exal Sinaga and Daniel Pakpahan. The Court found that it had jurisdiction and that the petitioners had standing. The decision was pronounced on 29 September 2026.

The petitioners argued that Article 40(2b) gives the Government power to cut off access without clear parameters, limits or protection for those affected, contrary to Article 1(3), Article 28D(1), Article 28E(2) and (3), Article 28F and Article 28G(1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court considered the petition clear enough to decide without hearing other parties under Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.

The Court first set out the full text of Article 40 as amended in 2024. It observed that the wording of Article 40(2b) is substantively the same as the version introduced by Law 19 of 2016, and that the substantive change lies in the Elucidation, which now defines "cutting off access" as blocking access, closing accounts and/or deleting content, including blocking social media accounts.

The Court then quoted its earlier decision 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, pronounced on 27 October 2021, which had rejected a challenge to the 2016 version of the same provision. In that decision the Court held that government action can be challenged through administrative objection, appeal and the courts, that the speed at which content spreads online made it impossible to require a written administrative decision before blocking, and that the Government could at the same time send a digital notification to the party whose content is blocked.

Applying this, the Court held that the authority in Article 40(2b) has a sufficiently clear limit, namely content that violates the law, and that blocking measures can be tested in the administrative courts. It found, however, that the provision is also procedural and that it sets out no procedure the Government must follow when cutting off access or ordering it. Because the power restricts the rights to information, to expression and to security protected by Article 28E(2) and (3), Article 28F and Article 28G(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that the procedure must be set by law, and that the delegation to a Government Regulation in Article 40(6) does not remove this need. The Court concluded that the Government must be obliged to issue a digital notification or written notice with its reasons when exercising the power. It stated that this reasoning was a strong and fundamental ground for departing from its position in decision 81/PUU-XVIII/2020. Because the Court's interpretation differed from the wording the petitioners requested, it held the petition well-founded in part.

The Ruling

The Court granted the petition in part. It declared Article 40(2b) of Law 1 of 2024 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally without binding legal force unless it is read as: "In carrying out prevention as referred to in paragraph (2a), the Government is authorised to cut off Access and/or order Electronic System Operators to cut off Access to Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents with unlawful content after issuing a digital notification or written notice together with its reasons." The Court ordered the decision to be published in the State Gazette and rejected the remainder of the petition.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Checked against the official text of decision 311/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 14 October 2026. This 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.

Read next