Understanding the Fragmented AI Regulatory Landscape in Indonesia
One of the main challenges in adopting AI in Indonesia is the fragmented nature of its regulations. To date, Indonesia does not have a single specific law that comprehensively regulates AI.5 Instead, companies must navigate a mosaic of regulations consisting of binding laws, soft regulations, and strategic policies. This regulatory uncertainty is recognized as a major concern for 75% of CEOs in Indonesia.2
The current government approach can be described as a dual strategy: a horizontal approach that utilizes existing laws, and a vertical approach that allows for sector-specific regulations in the future, such as in finance and health.7
The current existing framework can be summarized as follows:
| Legal & Regulatory Instruments | Key Relevance for AI | Nature |
| Law No. 27/2022 on Personal Data Protection (UU PDP) | Regulates the collection, processing, and use of personal data to train and operate AI models. It is the most crucial legislation today. | Binding |
| Law No. 28/2014 on Copyright (UU Hak Cipta) | Determines ownership (or lack thereof) of AI-generated works and the legality of using copyrighted data for training. | Binding |
| UU ITE & Civil Code (KUH Perdata) | Forms the basis for determining legal (civil) liability when AI systems cause losses or damages. | Binding |
| Circular Letter of the Minister of Communication and Informatics No. 9/2023 on AI Ethics | Provides official ethical guidelines regarding fairness, transparency, and accountability in the development and use of AI. | Soft Regulation (Non-Binding) |
| National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (Stranas KA) 2020-2045 | Outlines the government's long-term vision and priority sectors for AI development, providing a signal for future policy directions. | Strategic Policy (Non-Binding) |
Although some instruments such as the Circular Letter (SE) of the Minister of Communication and Information are "non-binding", ignoring them is a strategic mistake. A high-ranking government official has indicated that these ethical guidelines can be used to "sharpen the judge's hammer" in legal proceedings.8 This means that a company's failure to comply with the ethical principles in the SE can be interpreted by the court as evidence of negligence or bad faith under binding laws, such as Article 1365 of the Civil Code concerning Unlawful Acts. Thus, this soft regulation de facto establishes a standard of care that must be met by any responsible business.Pillar 1: Data as Fuel - PDP Law Compliance in the AI EcosystemFundamental Analogy: Data is Fuel, Compliance is an Operating License
Comments
0Share your perspective politely, stay relevant, and focus on the article. Comments appear after moderation.
Join the discussion
Write a clear, polite response that stays on topic.
No comments yet. Be the first to discuss.
Comments will appear after moderation.