Constitutional Court Decision 105/PUU-XXII/2024 And Potential War Buzzer

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court's Decision (MK) Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024 is in the public spotlight because it is considered to have significant implications for the dynamics of digital democracy in Indonesia, especially in the social media space. This decision decided to test the norms in the Electronic Information and Transaction Law (UU ITE).

Especially related to articles that have been used to ensnare netizens for alleged hate speech, defamation, and the dissemination of disturbing information. The decision of the Court 105 also seems to open up opportunities for an increase in the war of buzzers or buzzers on social media. As we know, buzzers often occur when criticism hit the government or regime in power.

The judicial review lawsuit filed by Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan, MA, a resident of Karimunjawa Village RT 04/RW 03, Karimunjawa District, Jepara Regency, Central Java Province with his lawyer Prof. Dr. Todung Mulya Lubis, SH, et al.

This decision has implications for several things, including the Constitutional Court emphasizing that the phrase "other person" in Article 27A of the ITE Law only refers to individual individuals, (not government institutions, institutions, corporations, professions, or positions). This aims to prevent misuse of the article to silence criticism of public institutions.

Illustration of hate speech (pixbay)

"It's okay"

"It's okay"

"It's okay"

"It's okay"

The Constitutional Court's decision also provides protection against Public Criticism, the ruling also emphasizes that criticism of government policies, public institutions, or corporations in the digital space cannot be criminally charged with defamation, as long as it is carried out in public interest and does not violate other laws. This also confirms the complaint offense, meaning that it can only be processed on individual reports. Criticism as part of Democracy, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that criticism, although sharp and does not contain consent, must ensure its existence as a form of oversight of power administration.

The decision also has implications for Law Enforcement, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that criticism, even though it is sharp and contains disapproval, must ensure its existence as a form of supervision of the implementation of power. Overall, the Constitutional Court's decision is also an important step in upholding freedom of expression and protecting the rights of citizens in expressing criticism as is the case with a double-edged knife.

The decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024 has recently been in the public spotlight because it is considered to have significant implications for the dynamics of digital democracy in Indonesia, especially in the social media space. This decision decided to test the norms in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), particularly related to articles that have often been used to ensnare netizens for alleged hate speech, defamation, and the dissemination of disturbing information.

The Constitutional Court stated in its decision that a number of articles in the ITE Law remained constitutional, but with several interpretive affirmations. The Court stated that law enforcement against speech on social media must uphold the principles of prudence, proportionality, and should not ignore the constitutional rights of citizens to express opinions.

Although normatively this decision aims to protect freedom of expression, on the other hand, many people are worried that the relaxation of interpretation of certain articles could actually be a gap for the resurgence of political buzzers which have been a scourge in Indonesia's digital space.

Buzzer: Controversial Opinion Machine

The buzzer or in English is often called Buzzer. Buzzer accounts or individuals who massively spread certain narratives on social media, often for political or economic purposes, have become a phenomenon that divides public opinion. They are able to create alternative realities, form public perceptions, even silence criticism with coordinated counter narratives.

The Constitutional Court's decision, according to some observers, has the potential to loosen the limit of legal responsibility for digital content, which buzzer actors can use to re-dominate public conversations without fear of strict legal consequences.

Freedom of Expression vs Opinion Manipulation, on the one hand, the Constitutional Court's decision strengthens the position of civil society, which has been worried about the criminalization of opinions on social media. However, on the other hand, when it is not accompanied by strong digital supervision and literacy, this legal leniency can be exploited by certain groups to spread disinformation or carry out structured political attacks through social media.

This is a serious challenge ahead of future political years. With more flexible rules, buzzers can return to play their roles more freely, directing narratives according to the interests of funders, without sufficient control from regulations.

What Should Be Done? Strengthening Digital Literacy: Society needs to be equipped with the ability to sort information, understand contexts, and regarding digital propaganda strategies. Transparency of Social Media Platforms: Platforms such as X, Facebook, and TikTok need to be invited to cooperate in identifying non-authentic activities or payment accounts.

Political Ethics and Accountability: Political parties and public figures must be invited to commit not to use buzzer services as a black campaign tool or manipulative.

The Constitutional Court's decision 105/PUU-XXII/2024 is a double-edged sword. It can be a breath of fresh air for freedom of expression, but also open up dark space for buzzer wars that threaten the quality of democracy. Therefore, the challenges ahead are not only on regulation, but also on digital culture and public integrity itself.

The Constitutional Court's decision Number 105/PUU-XXII/2024 is an important step in strengthening freedom of expression and providing legal certainty for citizens in expressing criticism of the government and public institutions.