Constitutional Court Rejects Petition for Burnt Internet Quota

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court has decided not to accept the application for testing the material of Article 71 paragraph 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Cipta Kerja which questions the burnt internet quota. The Court assessed that the application in case number 87/PUU-XXIV/2026 was unclear or vague (obscuur).

Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra stated that the applicant did not adequately elaborate on the reasons that showed the conflict between the norms of Article 71 paragraph 2 of the Employment Creation Law with the articles in the 1945 Constitution which served as the basis for the test.

"There is no doubt for the Court to declare the a quo petitions unclear or vague or obscuur," said Saldi as quoted by the MK memorandum, Friday, May 15.

The court also assessed that the applicant did not explain in full the basis for the Constitutional Court's authority to test laws against the 1945 Constitution as stipulated in Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 7 of 2025 concerning the Rules of Procedure in the Matter of Testing Laws.

The applicant only listed Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the Constitutional Court Law, and added the sentence "The Constitutional Court serves as The Guardian of the Constitution and The Protector of Citizen's Constitutional Rights".

In addition, in the legal position section, the applicant only listed five points of the conditions for constitutional rights loss without linking it to the substance of the loss suffered.

In the posita section, the applicant was also judged to have not adequately elaborated on the reasons that showed the conflict between the norms of Article 71 paragraph 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 with the provisions in the 1945 Constitution.

The application was filed by Rachmad Rofik. In the previous preliminary examination hearing, Rachmad assessed that the provisions of the internet quota were in violation of the constitutional right to protect private property as guaranteed by Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution.

According to Rachmad, when consumers buy data packages, there has been a sales agreement so that ownership rights over data capacity are transferred from the operator to the consumer. Therefore, the deletion of the remaining quota that has been paid is considered a form of removal of ownership without compensation.

In his petition, the applicant asked the Constitutional Court to declare Article 71 paragraph 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted that telecommunications service providers are obliged to provide a guarantee of accumulated data quota (data rollover) as long as the prepaid card is still active.