The Government May Still Block Content, but It Can No Longer Do So Without Explanation

Article 40 paragraph (2a) of Law No. 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to the ITE Law requires the government to prevent the dissemination and use of electronic information or documents containing prohibited content.

To fulfil this obligation, Article 40 paragraph (2b) authorises the government to terminate access or order Electronic System Operators (Penyelenggara Sistem Elektronik or “PSEs”) to terminate access to electronic information or documents containing unlawful content. The elucidation of this provision covers access blocking, account closure, and/or content removal, including the blocking of social media accounts.

Through Decision No. 311/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 29 September 2026, the Constitutional Court (MK) did not question the government’s authority in this regard. The MK considered that the limits of the authority to terminate access had been established, namely the presence of unlawful content, as further clarified in the elucidation of the provision. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s argument challenging the absence of parameters governing access termination and asserting that the provision created legal uncertainty was not accepted.

The Issue in Dispute: The Absence of Procedures

The issue that concerned the MK was not the government’s authority to terminate access, but rather the procedures that must be followed in exercising that authority. Article 40 paragraph (2b) of the ITE Law confers authority that may restrict constitutional rights, but does not expressly regulate the procedures for terminating access. According to the MK, leaving further regulation to a Government Regulation, as provided for under Article 40 paragraph (6), is insufficient to ensure legal certainty. The law must guarantee clear procedures so that affected parties are aware of the legal basis and reasons for the access termination.

On this basis, the MK partially granted the petition. Article 40 paragraph (2b) of the ITE Law was declared conditionally unconstitutional and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that access termination must be carried out after the government has issued a digital notification or written notice together with the reasons therefor.

The MK considered that the absence of such procedures contravened the rule-of-law principle under Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, the guarantee of fair legal certainty under Article 28D paragraph (1), freedom of thought and expression under Article 28E paragraphs (2) and (3), the right to obtain and communicate information under Article 28F, and the right to security and protection from threats that cause fear under Article 28G paragraph (1).

The Issue Is Not Merely Whether Blocking Is Permissible

This decision indicates a shift in the MK’s position from Decision No. 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, pronounced in 2021, which rejected a judicial review of a similar provision under Law No. 19 of 2016. At that time, the MK considered that the government already had a legal basis and a mechanism for restoring access. The obligation to issue a written decision before terminating access was also considered potentially capable of impeding efforts to prevent the dissemination of illegal content. Digital notification was viewed merely as a notice that could be provided simultaneously with the access termination.

Through Decision No. 311/PUU-XXIV/2026, this approach has changed. A digital notification or written notice, together with the reasons therefor, is now a prerequisite for access termination. This change is based on the finding that Article 40 paragraph (2b) of Law No. 1 of 2024 does not expressly regulate the procedures that the government must follow before terminating access.

The MK no longer treats notification merely as a step that may be taken, but as an obligation that must be fulfilled to ensure legal certainty and protect the constitutional rights of affected parties.

So, Can the Government No Longer Block Content Arbitrarily?

Constitutional Court Decision No. 311/PUU-XXIV/2026 does not prohibit the government from blocking content that violates the law. However, this authority must be exercised in accordance with clear procedures, including providing notice together with the reasons therefor before terminating access. The issue is not simply whether the government may block content, but how that authority is exercised transparently and accountably.