Indonesia: Constitutional Court ruled to uphold existing legal framework without requested modifications in case on alleged threats to freedom of expression under Article 65(2) and 67(2) of Personal Data Protection Law

On 19 January 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia rejected petition No. 135/PUU-XXIII/2025 regarding the material judicial review of Articles 65 and 67 of Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law). The legal challenge was initiated by the SIKAP coalition, including the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia and the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet). The petitioners argued that the prohibition on the unlawful disclosure of personal data under Article 65 paragraph (2) and the corresponding criminal penalties in Article 67 paragraph (2), which include imprisonment for up to four years and a fine of IDR 4'000'000'000, allow for imprecise interpretations that could obstruct journalistic, academic, and artistic work. The petitioners sought to have these provisions declared without binding legal force unless explicit exemptions for these sectors were included. The Constitutional Court determined that while the PDP Law does not explicitly stipulate sectoral exceptions in the challenged articles, journalists remain protected through the integration of professional ethical standards and Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press. The ruling clarified that personal data processing for journalistic purposes must adhere to the principles outlined in Article 16 paragraph (2) of the PDP Law, which requires processing to be limited, specific, lawful, and transparent. The court emphasised that the processing of personal data must have a lawful basis as regulated in Article 20 of the PDP Law and must prioritise the principle of prudence to prevent harm to individuals. The judiciary concluded that the inclusion of the term unlawful in the statute is essential to maintain the balance between the fundamental right to personal data protection and the public interest in information access. Consequently, the existing legal framework was upheld without the requested modifications.