"Fiat justitia ruat caelum"—let justice be done though the heavens fall.
Legal Literacy - This Latin phrase is a relevant opening to describe the importance of the Constitutional Court Decision (MK) Number 125/PUU-XXI/2024. Amidst the chaos of legal norms and practices in the enforcement of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), this decision comes as a clarifier of direction. Not only for judges and lawyers, but also for all citizens who have been haunted by the specter of rubber articles.
The Constitutional Court's decision provides a constitutional interpretation of the phrases "other people" and "something" in Article 27A and Article 45 paragraph (4) of the ITE Law. The Court considers the two phrases to be ambiguous and potentially create legal uncertainty. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided that the phrase "other people" must be understood as a party with a specific identity that can be recognized, and the phrase "something" as a concrete act that objectively degrades a person's honor or good name. With this decision, the Court provides a clearer limit to prevent abuse of the law.
Correcting the Erroneous Path of Law Enforcement
For years, the public has witnessed how the ITE Law has become a tool that is more often used to silence expression than to maintain internet ethics. The rubber articles in the ITE Law have become a digital ghost that can trap anyone: activists, journalists, academics, even ordinary people who write complaints on social media.
This Constitutional Court decision is a correction to that misguided path of law enforcement. In a healthy legal logic, legal norms should provide clarity, not spread fear. By providing an official interpretation of the phrases that have been used to ensnare, the Constitutional Court is reminding that the law should not become a secret trap for citizens.
Write a comment