Previous 10 / 280 Next

Machine Translated by Google 3. Whereas Plaintiff I is a Legal Entity/Organization that owns direct interest in the object of the lawsuit with reasons as follows: a. Whereas Plaintiff I is a Professional Organization which consistently and continuously advocate for fight for the interests of press freedom in the form of rights opinion, the right to information, the right to assemble and the right to associate, and fight for the dignity and welfare of the journalist. b. That as part of his struggle, Plaintiff I as The organization has used the Litigation process through the Right to Lawsuit Organization in the Constitutional Court by filing the Right to sue Organization, in the Matter of Application for Legal Testing against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945No. 02/PUU-VII/2009 at the Constitutional Court of the Republic Indonesia. c. That in carrying out its functions and duties, not only fight for or advocate for its members but also participate in responding to all problems as long as it concerns press freedom. All activities of Plaintiff I . organization based on Establishment Act No. 557,- Dated 30 December 1997 made in front of Notaries HM Afdal Gazali, SH, as amended/updated in AD/ART Number 32.Dated December 23, 2017, made before Notary Ida Noerfatmah About Alliance Congress Decision Statement Independent Journalist based in Administrative City Central Jakarta on Jln. Kembangan Raya No. 6, Kwitang, Monday, Central Jakarta 10420/ Jln. Sigura-gura No. 1/6a Duren Tiga, Page 10 of 280 pages of Decision No.230/ G/ TF/ 2019/ PTUN-JKT

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Alliance of Independent Journalists v. Minister of Communication

Case Law

Country

Indonesia

Country Location

Latitude: -0.789275

Longitude: 113.921327

Country Location (linked Case Law): Indonesia

Decision Date: Jun 3, 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

False News
Internet Shutdown

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: Jakarta State Administrative Court

Case Number: 230/G/TF/2019/PTUN-JKT

Case Summary: On June 3, 2020, the Jakarta State Administrative Court held that the actions taken by the government of shutting down the internet network in West Papua and Papua province were unlawful and ordered the government to pay to the Plaintiffs the amount Rp. 457,000 (Four Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand rupiah) or $30.59 USD approx. The plaintiffs which included organizations advocating for press freedom, digital rights, the right to information and the welfare of the journalists sued the Minister of Communications and Informatics and the President of the Republic of Indonesia for throttling access to the internet in some areas of West Papua province and Papua province on August 19, 2019. The defendants invoked the spread of hoaxes, transmission of false news, racist speech and incitement as the reasons for throttling access to the internet. While recognizing the right to access internet as a fundamental right under the ambit of freedom of expression, the court observed that the restrictions on the freedom of expression must fulfill three conditions: first, restrictions must fulfill one of the following objectives: right to reputation, morality, religious values, security, decency, public order, or public health; second; restrictions must be prescribed by law; third, restrictions must be proportional. The court agreed that the internet was shut down under “security and public order considerations” however the governmental action was not prescribed by law and therefore did not satisfy the second criterion, as the government’s power did not extend to the termination of access to internet network at large but could be used only to terminate access to electronic information/documents that had unlawful content.

Case Significance: By holding that governmental action of shutting down the internet in the whole of West Papua and Papua province violated the right to access the internet, through which other human rights are realized, the Court expanded the freedom of expression. The court also remarked that “freedom of expression and information, including freedom of the press by using any means deemed appropriate to express opinions and information so as to reach as many people as possible, is a fundamental human right which is the basis of other rights and freedoms in a democratic society because it enables people to actualize all their rights and potential for self-development, convey and reveal the truth, and actively participate in the administration of government in order to realize transparent, accountable, responsive, effective and efficient governance (good governance)”. The court also opined that in the case of internet abuse through unlawful content distribution, an appropriate and proportional action would be if the restriction on the right to access the internet is only aimed at the perpetrators […] because if it is carried out in its entirety through the shut down of the internet network, it will have a greater negative impact in the form of derogating other human rights that find a positive realization through the internet.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 10, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgement (English Translated)
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Alliance of Independent Journalists v. Minister of Communication

Primary Documents

Notifications