Today, the public is increasingly aware of the importance of safeguarding their right to the protection of their personal information or data. However, not everyone understands the extent to which this protection is granted. Therefore, it is not uncommon for some people to actually overstep these rights, one of which relates to Court decisions.
As we know, in mainstream mass media, the identities of the people involved, such as their full names, are generally disguised (anonymized) when covering legal cases. However, why are the resulting court decisions, including those of the Tax Court, not disguised? Isn't personal data protection, including names, guaranteed by statutory regulations? Why are court decisions that are accessible to the wider public not disguised? Does this mean anyone has the right to download and disseminate this data?
To answer these questions, we must first understand the provisions regarding personal data protection and its limitations, as well as the provisions regarding judicial power. The following is an explanation of these provisions:
To guarantee the public's right to the protection of their information or data, especially in this era of digitalization, the Government has established a series of regulations specifically created to govern this matter. The regulations in question include the Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP) and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE).
Before discussing personal data protection, we first need to know what is meant by such personal data. Based on the provisions of Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection (UU PDP), Personal Data is defined as data regarding an identified or identifiable individual, either separately or combined with other information, directly or indirectly, through electronic or non-electronic systems. Furthermore, Article 1 point 2 of the UU PDP defines Personal Data Protection as the overall effort to protect Personal Data in a series of Personal Data processing to guarantee the constitutional rights of the Personal Data subject.
Then, Article 4 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the UU PDP divide personal data into two types as follows:
a. Specific Personal Data includes:
b. General Personal Data:
Based on these provisions, it is known that a name is included as general personal data. Other personal data included in this category are data typically found on identity cards such as ID cards (KTP) and passports, or those related to demographic data.
However, in this digitalization era, the dissemination of information can occur very quickly through electronic devices. Therefore, if there is a data leak, especially of demographic data, our personal data can be widely spread through these electronic devices. On that basis, the Government established provisions regarding personal data protection, including those specifically regulating the protection of personal data in electronic form, namely Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (UU ITE).
Through the enactment of the UU PDP and UU ITE, the Government has established a legal foundation regarding personal data protection as an effort to prevent acts of misuse of such information by irresponsible parties. The actions in question include:
Furthermore, in practice, the misuse of information as described above tends to lead to the defamation of a person, as regulated in the provisions of Article 45 paragraph (4) of the UU ITE as follows:
"Any Person who intentionally attacks the honor or reputation of another person by accusing them of something, with the intention that the matter be known to the public in the form of Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents carried out through an Electronic System as referred to in Article 27A shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 2 (two) years and/or a maximum fine of Rp400,000,000.00 (four hundred million rupiah)."
Based on the provisions above, the dissemination of information that can attack the honor or reputation of another person is one of the prohibited acts. However, in the elucidation of Article 45 paragraph (4), it is not explained what is meant by "attacking the honor or reputation of another person," so there are no clear boundaries regarding what actions fulfill the elements in that article.
However, further in Article 45 paragraph (7), it is stated that the act is not punishable if it is carried out for the public interest or in self-defense. So, what is meant by the "public interest"? Furthermore, in the Elucidation of Article 45 paragraph (7), it is stipulated that:
"What is meant by 'carried out for the public interest' is protecting the interests of the community expressed through the right to expression and the right to democracy, for example through demonstrations or criticism. In a democratic country, criticism is an important part of the freedom of expression which should ideally be constructive, even if it contains disagreement with the acts or actions of others. Basically, criticism in this article is a form of supervision, correction, and suggestion regarding matters related to the public interest."
Based on this definition, it can be said that what is meant by the "public interest" in this provision is an expression directed at authorities who have jurisdiction over the interests of the wider community. Then, does mentioning the identities of litigating parties in Court decisions fall under this provision? To answer that question, we also need to know the limitations of information transparency in the public realm as regulated in Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Openness (UU KIP).
As previously explained, every legal subject has the right to the protection of their personal data. However, in the judicial realm (including the Tax Court realm), there are broader public interests that will be affected by every decision issued by a judicial body. Therefore, through the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the UU KIP, there are several exceptions which include:
Based on these provisions, it can be concluded that decisions of judicial bodies, such as the Tax Court, are not included in the category of protected information. Furthermore, in Article 1 point 2 of the UU KIP, public information is defined as:
"Public Information is information generated, stored, managed, sent, and/or received by a public agency related to state administrators and administration and/or other public agency administrators and administration in accordance with this Law, as well as other information related to the public interest."
Referring to these provisions, court decisions (including the Tax Court) that have been pronounced in hearings open to the public are categorized as Public Information. Even though the identity of a legal subject is part of the inherent personal information or data of a person, once the legal subject is involved in a case (whether as a plaintiff, defendant, appellant, appellee, witness, or expert), all information contained in the court decision resulting from the case, including their identity, is public information.
But why is this so? Why must the identities of litigating parties be included in published court decisions? Why can't they just be disguised like in the mass media? To understand this, we need to look at the related provisions in the statutory regulations governing judicial power.
Despite being a specialized court, the Tax Court remains subject to Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power (UU KK). Therefore, like other judicial bodies, the Tax Court must also follow certain principles related to the implementation of its authority.
We must understand that in order to carry out its function as one of the state institutions, the Supreme Court (MA) and the judicial institutions below it (including the Tax Court) have an obligation to follow principles which include:
a. Principle of Public Information Openness
Based on this principle, the public has the right to access and obtain correct, honest, and non-discriminatory information in government administration. This means that all information generated by public bodies (including decisions of judicial institutions) is fundamentally open and accessible to the wider public, except for information that is strictly and limitedly exempted by law (Article 2 of the UU KIP).
b. Open Court Principle (Openbaarheidsbeginsel)
This principle is one of the main pillars of judicial power in Indonesia. Based on this principle, all court examination hearings are open to the public unless the law determines otherwise. The legal consequence of this principle is that the entire process, considerations, and decisions pronounced in hearings open to the public become public documents that can be known and studied by the public (Article 13 paragraph (1) of the UU KK).
c. Principle of Legal Certainty and Principle of Erga Omnes
In practice, it is undeniable that cases involving the application of public law (including tax law) do not only affect the litigating parties but also the general public because they involve state finances and public interests. In addition, the public (especially business actors) also needs these decisions as precedents, guides, or jurisprudence to understand how laws are applied in similar disputes in the future. That is why every decision must be pronounced in a hearing open to the public and accessible to everyone.
Furthermore, the implementation of these principles has also been outlined in Article 13 of the UU KK as follows:
Referring to these provisions, it can be concluded that publishing a decision in a hearing open to the public is a necessity for the validity of the decision. In addition, Article 52 paragraph (1) of the UU KK also stipulates that:
"The court is obliged to provide access to the public to obtain information relating to decisions and court fees in the trial process."
This means that once a decision is made and pronounced in a hearing open to the public, the Court is obligated to include all relevant information (including the identities of the litigating parties) in the publication of the court decision on the Supreme Court's (MA) Decision Directory website. This is intended so that the decision can be accessed by the wider public and is available at any time as a form of public supervision over law enforcement in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the UU KIP.
However, even though the identities of the litigating parties in court decisions are included as public information, it does not mean that all legal subject identities can be published widely and freely in every court decision. Like the UU KIP, regulations related to judicial power also make several exceptions regarding the inclusion of party information in court decisions. This is because the judicial system in Indonesia still guarantees the protection of the identities of legal subjects for certain types of cases.
Besides the Citizen Identity Number, court decisions (including the Tax Court) contain information related to the parties involved in the case. However, there are still several exceptions where information regarding the litigating parties must not be published at all. The provisions regarding these exceptions are contained in the Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 2-144/KMA/SK/VIII/2022, which establishes exceptions based on the type of case and several circumstances as follows:
Based on these types of cases and circumstances, it can be said that exceptions are applied to cases deemed sensitive and requiring privacy rights protection (especially concerning children, victims, and decency). In these cases, the Supreme Court mandates the protection of legal subject information such as names, addresses, and other identities by anonymizing (disguising) this information in the decision. On the other hand, the public-related cases (including tax cases) are not included in these exceptions, so it is only proper that the names of the litigating parties continue to be included in the text of Tax Court decisions.
Moreover, the Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 2-144/KMA/SK/VIII/2022 also stipulates that everyone has the right to obtain this information in accordance with the provisions of statutory regulations. The provisions in question specifically regulate that everyone has the right to:
In line with the provisions of the UU KIP and UU KK, every piece of information contained in court decisions (including the Tax Court) attains the status of open public information once the decision is published. Therefore, everyone has the right to access and disseminate it as long as the user of the information does not commit unlawful acts as previously mentioned.
After discussing the provisions regarding personal data protection and judicial power, we are now faced with the question: between these two provisions, which one is applied? As previously mentioned, neither the UU PDP nor the UU ITE specificallymentions court decisions as information that can be disseminated.
Therefore, it is not surprising that there are parties who use these two provisions as a legal basis to oppose the mention of party identities in court decisions, including the Tax Court, creating the possibility of a clash between the UU PDP and UU ITE with the UU KIP and UU KK. Furthermore, because both provisions are Laws (Undang-Undang), they are on equal footing. Therefore, to determine which provision is applied in this case, we need to understand the essence of the case.
For this case, namely the mention of the identity or name of a legal subject in a court decision, including the Tax Court, it is a matter related to the application of public information openness and the implementation of judicial power. Therefore, it can be concluded that in this case, the issues discussed relate to the provisions of the UU KIP and UU KK. This is because both the UU PDP and UU ITE regulate the protection of personal information and data, not public information contained in court decisions. As explained above, once personal data (for example: full name) is included in a court decision, the data becomes public information, thus falling into the realm of the UU KIP and UU KK.
It is a different matter if someone downloads the decision and then adds a narrative or manipulates data related to the concerning legal subject, where this has nothing to do with the information contained in the decision, falls into the realm of personal data protection as regulated in the UU PDP and UU ITE. Therefore, the provisions of the UU KIP and UU KK are the ones applied in this case.
Basically, the protection of personal information or data in court decisions published in the Supreme Court (MA) Decision Directory is specifically regulated to balance the principle of public information openness and the right to individual privacy. Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that mentioning the identity or name of a legal subject in the publication of Tax Court decisions does not violate prevailing statutory provisions. Even more than that, this action is also the fulfillment of principles, such as the principle of transparency and the Erga Omnes principle, where every Tax Court decision has binding legal force and applies to everyone because it concerns state finances and public interests.
Therefore, every citizen has the right to access and use the information in published Tax Court decisions while remaining mindful of the prevailing statutory regulations. These actions are permitted as long as the user does not add irrelevant narratives or manipulate data within the downloaded decision.
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id