Jurisprudence Shaping Digital Rights in Southeast Asia of rights; therefore, measures should comply with applicable human rights standards, including when it is deemed necessary, and preceded by the issuance of an official declaration of the state of emergency, which provides legal ground for derogation of the rights. varying approaches of courts to filtering and blocking. In 2019, in Decision no 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, AJI and Arnoldus Belau, a contributor to ‘Suarapapua.com’, an online media platform focusing on Papua, filed a constitutional review of Art 40 (2b) of the IET Law, which provides legal basis for internet blocking in Indonesia to the Constitutional Court. The review was to challenge the government’s measure to cut off access to ‘Suarapapua.com’ for an undefined period in 2016 and called for the court to strike down Art 40 (2b) of the IET Law providing authority for the restriction of access. The petitioners argued that the overbroad formulation of the article provided too broad a discretionary power to the government without any checks. The court however opined that freedom of expression is a derogable right and therefore is subject to limitation; therefore, the government’s measure to limit access to online content, unlawful and prohibited content is permissible. The court opined that restriction of access should be permissible considering the virality of the internet which can spread negative and prohibited content to a broader population quickly, thus increasing the risk of negative impact produced by the spread content.22 Therefore, the court rejected the petition and strengthened the government’s authority contained in Art 40 (2b) of the law. The court viewed that the absence of such an official declaration of a state of emergency made the government’s measure to disrupt internet access a violation of the principles of good governance and the law. 3. FILTERING OR ACCESS BLOCKING Filtering and access blocking to electronic information are common practices across the region. Filtering and access blocking are often used interchangeably despite being distinct from each other. While filtering blocks web pages based on characteristics like keywords, protocols, or traffic patterns, blocking prevents access to entire websites, domains, IP addresses, protocols, or services. In general, pretext for filtering and access blocking to information online are similar to those used to justify disruption of internet access, such as national security, blasphemy, public morals, and public order. However, overbroad and vaguely formulated laws have paved the way for states to exercise discretionary powers arbitrarily, justifying access blocking and filtering of particular electronic information. This is particularly problematic for media, where news is increasingly accessed online and critical reports are often blocked or filtered by the state. Two landmark decisions from the Philippines and one constitutional court decision in Indonesia demonstrate 22 23 Another troubling practice that is used in the region is related to revocation of licence to operate issued to intermediaries, particularly media, for failing to comply with government requests.23 In the Philippines, as demonstrated in the case See Decision no 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8195.pdf See Dien Luong, Internet blocks won’t solve Southeast Asia’s fake-news problem, Nikkei Asia, August, 7, 2022, https:// asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Internet-blocks-won-t-solve-Southeast-Asia-s-fake-news-problem 12