Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) reminds the Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Rudiantara, to immediately fulfil the Government’s promise to revise Law on Information and Electronic Transaction (ITE Law).
Anggara, the Chairperson of Governing Board of ICJR, asserts that the ITE Law revision has been promised by the government since 2009, but until today the progress of ITE Law revision cannot be seen at all. The government, through the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, does not even pushing the ITE Law to the National Legislation Program. Because of this, ICJR urges the Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Rudiantara to immediately put the ITE Law revision proposal into the National Legislation Program.
According to Anggara, the revision to the ITE Law must be done immediately to assert the policy of regulating internet content and also remove criminal stipulations which are duplicated from criminal stipulations available in the Indonesian Criminal Code. He asserts that the government better be committed in removing criminal acts which basically are already regulated in the Indonesian Criminal Code and also in other regulations such as contempt, spreading hatred, etc. This removal is important so that an inflation on criminal stipulations which causes a weakening on human rights protection does not happened.
Anggara asserts that ICJR refuses the model of revision to the ITE Law that only decreases the criminal sanctions in the ITE Law. As an example in revising Article 27 paragraph (3) of ITE Law on contempt and defamation in the cyberspace, the government only revises Article 45 which reduces the punishment to 3 years. ICJR refuses partial revision in this case, and insist the government to revoked Article 27 paragraph (3). Because the fundamental problem is the model of formulation of criminal acts that is not respecting human rights principles and tend to have a wide indicators and easy to be carelessly interpreted.
According to ICJR in current defamation cases that use Article 27 paragraph (3) of ITE Law is still excessive. Based on ICJR monitoring, there are several cases of Article 27 paragraph (3) that are still in the investigating or prosecuting stages in the court, namely: the Florence Case, Saut Sitomorang Case, Iwan Sukrie Case, Rosalia Amelia Case, Faike Case in Jember, Adam Amrullah Case, Deddy Endarto Case, and Budiman Case.
Anggara also asserts the need to regulate the content policy in the ITE Law, especially in the regulation model of internet censorship. Stipulation on internet censorship like the one available in the Minister of Communication and Information Technology Regulation No. 19 of 2014 on Controlling Internet Websites Containing Negative Content is not accurate. According to ICJR, stipulation on internet contents better be regulated by an instrument in the level of a Law. According to Anggara, ICJR is also in the process of submitting a request to review the Ministerial Regulation to the Supreme Court.
