The Petitioner’s expert, communication professor of UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta Iswandi Syahputra (onscreen), testifying at the judicial review hearing of the Broadcasting Law virtually, Thursday (1/10) at the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Video on demand (VOD) content disseminated by over-the-top (OTT) services can have a negative influence on the public’s morality, so the state plays an important role in regulating OTT services, said communication professor of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta Iswandi Syahputra. He was presented by Petitioners RCTI and iNews at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting. The fifth hearing for case No. 39/PUU-XVIII/2020 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) virtually on Thursday afternoon, October 1, 2020 under strict COVID-19 health protocols.

“Negative content [broadcasted by] the OTT [services] can have a detrimental impact on the public and even threaten the country’s sovereignty. [Indonesia is a republic], therefore the state must protect its citizens when they need protection,” he said before the justice panel led by the Chief Justice Anwar Usman. 

Also read: RCTI and iNews Question Regulation on Internet Broadcasting 

Iswandi added that OTT services in the form of VOD is broadcasting content or part of broadcasting forms that needs regulating. The state absolutely has to regulate it or protect the public from negative content. The regulation isn’t meant to restrict the public’s freedom of thought or expression, which are their basic rights.

“OTT content needs to be monitored or regulated because it may have a bad influence on the public, it can cause moral panic because it could contain pornography, sadism, and even deception. In certain cases, it can even threaten the state’s sovereignty, for example [by promoting] radicalism and terrorism. Regulation and supervision of OTT content can be carried out using Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting,” the former KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) commissioner explained. 

Also read: Govt: Addition of New Norms Will Create New Legal Subjects

Role of the Broadcasting Commission

Iswandi said that the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission or KPI is needed to regulate OTT services because it has already had broadcasting monitoring instruments and trained human resources and 15-18 years of experience in broadcasting monitoring.

“(The KPI) is spread in all provinces in Indonesia. They have undergone a fairly long process of training and of handling broadcast violation cases so it is not too difficult to monitor internet-based broadcast violations for the OTT category,” he stressed.

Moral Panic 

Iswandi also said that the Indonesian society has experienced a moral panic facing the rush of global OTT services due to the absence of state regulation over OTT content. He mentioned several cases triggered by OTT content as an example of its negative impacts.

"For example, the case of Ferdian Paleka, the YouTuber who gave away [garbage disguised as donations]. [Also] a husband and wife in Kalibata who mutilated a victim, [inspired by] YouTube [content]. It shows the immense influence of negative broadcasts,” he said. 

Responding to the Ministry of Communication and Informatics’ representative’s question regarding the Information and Electronic Transactions (IET) Law as a legal instrument regulating OTT services, Iswandi said that the IET Law doesn’t regulate the parties that monitor OTT content. “I believe the Broadcasting Law is sufficient, but it needs more articles to adapt to technological advances,” he said.

Role of the State

IT legislation and law expert Danrivanto Budhijanto also said of the importance of a legal instrument to regulate OTT services. Not to mention, Indonesia is a large market share for global OTT services.

"In one minute, according to [German company specializing in market and consumer data] Statista, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the public uses internet to watch movies, [view] photos, and to communicate, both in digital forms and using the OTT platform," he said. Indonesia has highest number of internet users in Southeast Asia as in addition to [being a large archipelago], Indonesia has the largest population in Southeast Asia, so internet infrastructure is a necessity," he added.

Progressive Law 

Danrivanto said that a rush of OTT services without clear legal regulations has led to the regression of Indonesia’s television industry. Comparing Indonesia with countries that have regulated OTT services, he said America, China, India, and the European Union already have regulations for internet broadcasting, including internet TV and digital streaming. He said that Indonesia needs a progressive legal product on technology.

"[The late professor emeritus of law] Satjipto Rahardjo talked about using the knowledge of law and legislation on technology, that the law is not an absolute requirement because it is always in the process of being. This means that legislation on technology around the world is trying to respond to technological advances. Then, we will have a statutory regulation that use virtual sovereignty approaches," he said.

Also read: House: OTT Services Not among National Broadcasting System 

The Petitioners of case No. 39/PUU-XVIII/2020 are PT Visi Citra Mitra Mulia (Inews TV), represented by executive director David Fernando Audy and director Rafael Utomo (Petitioner I), as well as PT Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI), represented by directors Jarod Suwahjo and Dini Aryanti Putri (Petitioner II). Their legal team is Taufik Akbar and peers. They requested a material review of Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law, "Broadcasting means an activity of broadcasting through a transmitter and/or transmission facilities on land, in the sea, or in space by using radio frequency spectrum through air, cable, and/or other media to be received simultaneously and synchronously by the public with a broadcast receiver." 

They argued that the provision of Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law has caused constitutional damage for them because it has led to unequal treatment between the Petitioners as conventional broadcasters using radio frequency and broadcasters using the internet such as over-the-top (OTT) services. 

They believe that because there is no legal certainty whether internet broadcast such as the a quo OTT services falls under broadcasting as regulated in Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law or not, so far internet broadcast such as OTT services is not bound by the Broadcasting Law. Because internet broadcasters are not bound by the Broadcasting Law, the Petitioners believe it has caused unequal treatment.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/02/2020 15:04 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.