Constitutional Court Decision 311/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 40(2b) of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (the ITE Law), Undang-Undang 11/2008 as amended for the second time by Undang-Undang 1/2024. The provision empowers the Government to cut off access to electronic information or documents with unlawful content, or to order electronic system operators to do so.^[1][2] It is one of the constitutional review cases pronounced by the Court on 29 September 2026, and the petition compared the power with the safeguards of criminal procedure.^[3][4]

The Court held that the power had a sufficiently clear limit but that the provision set no procedure for its exercise, although it restricts the rights to expression, to information and to security protected by the Constitution. It declared Pasal 40(2b) conditionally unconstitutional unless read to allow access to be cut off only after the Government issues a digital notification or written notice with its reasons, and stated that this was a ground for departing from its 2021 decision upholding the earlier version of the provision.^[5][3:1]

¶ Background

The power to cut off access was introduced into the ITE Law by the first amendment, Undang-Undang 19/2016, as part of the Government's duty to prevent the dissemination of electronic information with prohibited content.^[6] The 2024 amendment added Pasal 40(2c) and (2d), on orders to operators to cut off access or moderate content concerning pornography, gambling and content dangerous to life or health, and changed the elucidation of Pasal 40(2b).^[6:1][2:1] The Court observed that the wording of Pasal 40(2b) itself was substantively unchanged from the 2016 version, and that the substantive change lay in the elucidation, which now defines cutting off access as blocking access, closing accounts and/or deleting content, including blocking social media accounts.^[7] Pasal 40(6) leaves further rules on the Government's role to a government regulation.^[2:2]

In decision 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, pronounced on 27 October 2021, the Court had rejected a challenge to the 2016 version of the provision.^[8] Quoting that decision, the Court recalled its holdings that blocking was a government action open to objection, appeal and review in the courts; that the speed at which online content spreads made it impossible to require a written administrative decision before blocking; and that the Government could at the same time send a digital notification to the party whose content was blocked.^[7:1]

¶ Petition

The petition was brought by seven individual citizens who described themselves as active users of social media or search engines; the Court found that it had jurisdiction and that they had standing.^[9] As summarised by the Court, they argued that Pasal 40(2b) gives the Government power to cut off access without clear parameters on the basis and limits of the power or protection for those affected, contrary to legal certainty in Pasal 28D(1), freedom of expression in Pasal 28E(2) and (3), the right to information in Pasal 28F and the right to security in Pasal 28G(1) of the Constitution, and to the rule-of-law principle in Pasal 1(3). They contrasted it with Pasal 140 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, Undang-Undang 20/2025, which they said requires the permission of the chief judge of a district court for a comparable measure.^[4:1]

They asked, in the alternative, for the provision to be struck down, for it to be read to require the permission of the chief judge of a district court, or for it to be read to require a digital notification to the affected party stating the legal basis and reasons for the measure and the remedies available. The Court decided the case without hearing other parties under Pasal 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.^[4:2][10]

¶ Ruling

The Court held that the power in Pasal 40(2b) has a sufficiently clear limit, namely content that violates the law, read with the elucidation's definition of cutting off access, and that blocking measures can be tested in the administrative courts as government actions.^[11] Relying on its 2021 statement that a digital notification could accompany blocking, it accepted the petitioners' argument for notification to affected parties.^[12]

It found, however, that the provision is also procedural and that it sets out no procedure that the Government must follow when cutting off access or ordering it. Because the power restricts the rights protected by Pasal 28E(2) and (3), 28F and 28G(1), the Court held that the procedure must be set with certainty, and that the delegation to a government regulation in Pasal 40(6) does not relieve the statute of the need to make clear how the restriction is applied. It concluded that the Government must be obliged to exercise the power by issuing a digital notification or written notice together with its reasons, so that a party who considers that it has not broken the law can pursue the remedies available to it. The Court stated that this reasoning was a strong and fundamental ground for departing from decision 81/PUU-XVIII/2020, and, because its reading differed from the wording the petitioners had requested, held the petition well-founded in part.^[5:1][13]

The operative order granted the petition in part and declared Pasal 40(2b) contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally without binding legal force unless read as allowing the Government to cut off access, or order electronic system operators to cut off access, to electronic information or documents with unlawful content "after issuing a digital notification or written notice together with its reasons" (setelah menerbitkan/mengeluarkan notifikasi digital atau pemberitahuan secara tertulis beserta alasannya). It ordered the decision to be published in the State Gazette and rejected the remainder of the petition. The decision was reached in deliberation on 16 September 2026 by nine judges, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 29 September 2026.^[3:2] The Court had disposed of an earlier petition on the ITE Law, decision 260/PUU-XXIV/2026, by declaring it inadmissible on 30 July 2026.^[14]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 18 October 2026.^[15]

¶ See also

• Data governance in Indonesia
• Constitutional Court Decision 322/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 308/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Notice Before Blocking Online Content Under the ITE Law: MK 311/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 18 October 2026)

¶ References