Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
Photo: kvltmagz.co
A number of Indonesian social organizations recently urged both the government and the House of Representatives (House) to immediately revise Law No. 11 of 2008on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE Law), which has already led to the “victimization” of a substantial number of internet users (commonly known as “netizens”).
Damar Juniarto, Regional Coordinator for Safenet, recently asserted that, according to his organization’s data, some 118 netizens were charged under obscure provisions set out in the ITE Law during the 2008 - 2015 period. Most cases involved allegations of defamation as prescribed under Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law, which has become a favorite provision of law enforcers and those looking to silence their critics.
As the ITE Law in its current form has tended criminalize netizens around the country, Mr. Juniarto strongly suggests that both the government and the House immediately revise it, with Article 27 (3) being made a top priority.
“Defamation remains the preferred method for those looking to put someone behind bars,” explained Mr. Juniarto at a discussion held in Jakarta on Monday, 30 November 2015.
Article 27 (3) is often used by aggrieved parties to file lawsuits in a bid to have the suspected perpetrators of acts of defamation arrested. Such arrests affect not only the perpetrators though, but also society as a whole, since citizens may in time become wary of expressing their opinions or voicing criticism through the internet. Indeed, the primary targets of this article have to date been anti-corruption activists, journalists, supporters of democracy, and whistleblowers.
Commenting on this issue, Suwarjono, the Chair of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), points to a recent trend in attempting to silence freedom of expression through the ITE Law, especially as exercised by the press, writers, journalists, and content managers.
Mr. Suwarjono further revealed that acts of defamation, as defined under the ITE Law, could also encompass informants and interviewees. In such a climate, citizens will become reluctant to offer their true opinions, fearing that they will subsequently be criminalized under the framework of the ITE Law.
“This law poses a threat to the media and the freedom of the press, as informants and interviewees will become reluctant to give voice to their opinions,” asserted Mr. Suwarjono.
Asep Komarudin, Legal Aid for the Press Council’s Head of Research and Network Development Division is of the same opinion as Mr. Juniarto and predicts that a wave of criminal cases relating to acts of defamation will be brought following the issuance of the ITE Law.
It is against this background that a number of social organizations recently filed for a judicial review of Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law with the Constitutional Court (MK).
Mr. Komarudin firmly believes that the criminal acts defined under Article 27 (3) should be accompanied by full and thorough explanations, as the current definitions are woefully inadequate. Mr. Komarudin further referred to Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code, which regulate defamation in far greater detail than Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law does.
Moreover, the Criminal Code defines defamation as an act that is performed in public, while the ITE Law’s provision offers a far wider definition, since the exchange of short messages between two people may also constitute defamation should any of the parties involved take offence.
Unfortunately however, the MK has rejected the recent petition, stating that Indonesia needs to control defamation more aggressively due to the fact that the Criminal Code is insufficient as regards the regulation of the internet and online media.
According to Mr. Komarudin, the ITE Law was initially intended to regulate electronic transactions taking place over the internet (so-called e-commerce). However, while it was being deliberated at the House, several criminal provisions, including Article 27 (3), managed to find their way into the ITE Law.
“People accused of violating Article 27 (3) can be arrested immediately and may eventually be sentenced to six years imprisonment. In comparison, the Criminal Code’s sanctions were far lower than that,” asserted Mr. Komarudin.
Furthermore, almost all internet-related defamation cases utilize screen-captured images as primary sources of evidence. According to Mr. Komarudin however, more in-depth investigations should be conducted and involve other forms of digital evidence and DNS assessments.
“The police should not rely solely on reports and screen grabs, but also search for more incriminating digital evidence as well as conduct forensic examinations,” Mr. Komarudin stressed.
In this context, Mr. Komarudin suggests that the criminal provisions set out in the ITE Law already regulated under the Criminal Code be revoked in order to avoid over-criminalization. Mr. Komarudin believes that the ITE Law should be returned to its original purpose of regulating electronic transactions.
“If the government wants to block access to certain internet content, then this should be regulated under a separate law instead of incorporating such provisions into the ITE Law,” Mr. Komarudin concluded.
(sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Ady TD Achmad
Photo: kvltmagz.co
A number of Indonesian social organizations recently urged both the government and the House of Representatives (House) to immediately revise Law No. 11 of 2008on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE Law), which has already led to the “victimization” of a substantial number of internet users (commonly known as “netizens”).
Damar Juniarto, Regional Coordinator for Safenet, recently asserted that, according to his organization’s data, some 118 netizens were charged under obscure provisions set out in the ITE Law during the 2008 - 2015 period. Most cases involved allegations of defamation as prescribed under Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law, which has become a favorite provision of law enforcers and those looking to silence their critics.
As the ITE Law in its current form has tended criminalize netizens around the country, Mr. Juniarto strongly suggests that both the government and the House immediately revise it, with Article 27 (3) being made a top priority.
“Defamation remains the preferred method for those looking to put someone behind bars,” explained Mr. Juniarto at a discussion held in Jakarta on Monday, 30 November 2015.
Article 27 (3) is often used by aggrieved parties to file lawsuits in a bid to have the suspected perpetrators of acts of defamation arrested. Such arrests affect not only the perpetrators though, but also society as a whole, since citizens may in time become wary of expressing their opinions or voicing criticism through the internet. Indeed, the primary targets of this article have to date been anti-corruption activists, journalists, supporters of democracy, and whistleblowers.
Commenting on this issue, Suwarjono, the Chair of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), points to a recent trend in attempting to silence freedom of expression through the ITE Law, especially as exercised by the press, writers, journalists, and content managers.
Mr. Suwarjono further revealed that acts of defamation, as defined under the ITE Law, could also encompass informants and interviewees. In such a climate, citizens will become reluctant to offer their true opinions, fearing that they will subsequently be criminalized under the framework of the ITE Law.
“This law poses a threat to the media and the freedom of the press, as informants and interviewees will become reluctant to give voice to their opinions,” asserted Mr. Suwarjono.
Asep Komarudin, Legal Aid for the Press Council’s Head of Research and Network Development Division is of the same opinion as Mr. Juniarto and predicts that a wave of criminal cases relating to acts of defamation will be brought following the issuance of the ITE Law.
It is against this background that a number of social organizations recently filed for a judicial review of Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law with the Constitutional Court (MK).
Mr. Komarudin firmly believes that the criminal acts defined under Article 27 (3) should be accompanied by full and thorough explanations, as the current definitions are woefully inadequate. Mr. Komarudin further referred to Articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code, which regulate defamation in far greater detail than Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law does.
Moreover, the Criminal Code defines defamation as an act that is performed in public, while the ITE Law’s provision offers a far wider definition, since the exchange of short messages between two people may also constitute defamation should any of the parties involved take offence.
Unfortunately however, the MK has rejected the recent petition, stating that Indonesia needs to control defamation more aggressively due to the fact that the Criminal Code is insufficient as regards the regulation of the internet and online media.
According to Mr. Komarudin, the ITE Law was initially intended to regulate electronic transactions taking place over the internet (so-called e-commerce). However, while it was being deliberated at the House, several criminal provisions, including Article 27 (3), managed to find their way into the ITE Law.
“People accused of violating Article 27 (3) can be arrested immediately and may eventually be sentenced to six years imprisonment. In comparison, the Criminal Code’s sanctions were far lower than that,” asserted Mr. Komarudin.
Furthermore, almost all internet-related defamation cases utilize screen-captured images as primary sources of evidence. According to Mr. Komarudin however, more in-depth investigations should be conducted and involve other forms of digital evidence and DNS assessments.
“The police should not rely solely on reports and screen grabs, but also search for more incriminating digital evidence as well as conduct forensic examinations,” Mr. Komarudin stressed.
In this context, Mr. Komarudin suggests that the criminal provisions set out in the ITE Law already regulated under the Criminal Code be revoked in order to avoid over-criminalization. Mr. Komarudin believes that the ITE Law should be returned to its original purpose of regulating electronic transactions.
“If the government wants to block access to certain internet content, then this should be regulated under a separate law instead of incorporating such provisions into the ITE Law,” Mr. Komarudin concluded.
(sp)