T

he House of Representatives and the government have agreed to include the controversial “right to be forgotten” provision in the amendment of the much-criticized 2008 Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law, which is set to be endorsed by the end of next week, says a top lawmaker.

TB Hasanuddin, the deputy chairman of House Commission I overseeing communication and information, said that under the proposed amendment, a court would have the power to order the government to erase information considered irrelevant to a person, including that uploaded on the internet.

“Let’s say someone is accused in a case, but a court rules that the person is innocent. But published reports about the allegation have already spread and the internet stores records suggesting that the person is bad while they are actually kind. The person could ask the court to order the government to remove the information,” the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician said on Tuesday.

In some countries, the “right to be forgotten” has been criticized because it is deemed to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to information. Many have also suggested that implementation of such a provision could lead to censorship.

But Hasanuddin shrugged off the concern. “This article is to [guarantee] people’s rights,” he said.

The revision could add to the numerous contentious articles already in the draconian law that have seen dozens of netizens jailed for what they posted on the internet.

Under the proposed Article 26, Point 3, the government, through the Communications and Information Ministry, shall be obliged to remove all irrelevant information based on a request of certain individual should the request be approved by a court.

Henry Subiakto, an expert staff member at the Communications and Information Ministry who is representing the government in the law deliberation hearings at the House, said a citizen should be allowed to exercise his or her “right to be forgotten” in order to restore his or her reputation because past published reports about his or her mistakes could ruin his or her life and future.

“We can’t keep storing information that has become irrelevant,” Henry said.

If the information is published by an online media publication that is not a legal entity, he added, the government could unilaterally remove it from the internet. But if it is published by a legally registered media outfit, the government would have to ask the media organization to remove the articles.

The media, he said, could still use the information for background stories as long as it was not used to intentionally damage a subject’s reputation.

Henry also said the government would soon draft a government regulation (PP) to further elaborate the details of the mechanism and issue guidelines to avoid misinterpretation.

While lawmakers and the government insist that the “right to be forgotten” is aimed at protecting people’s rights, advocacy groups see it differently.

Researcher Wahyudi Djafar from the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) said the provision was against the people’s right to the truth, citing past human rights abuse cases.

“Not only is the regulation against human rights as it will restrict people’s right to access as much information as possible, but also certain people could misuse the regulation to clear up their bad records,” he said.