The court rejected the petition, stating that the law did not hinder the public from exercising their rights to conduct business freely. Constitutional Court chief justice Anwar Usman read out the ruling during a hearing on Thursday, as reported by kompas.com.

In their judicial review petition filed in September last year, the two television stations argued that Article 1 of the law discriminated against broadcast media. The law defines broadcasting as the transmission of information via radio frequency through the air, cable or other media.

Read also: RCTI, iNews TV under fire following petition to classify OTT firms as broadcasting media

The plaintiffs argued that OTT companies that distributed digital content and services through the internet remained relatively unregulated. They argued that a redefinition of broadcast media was required so that digital content and service providers may become subject to the same laws that bind traditional media.

In its ruling, Constitutional Court justices argued that the OTT companies were regulated under several laws, including the Pornography Law, the Copyright Law, the Trade Law, the Criminal Code, the Press Law and the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law.

“[These laws] regulate possible violations [committed through] OTT content. [There are also] other sectoral laws that carry administrative or criminal sanctions,” Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said.

Media conglomerate PT Media Nusantara Citra (MNC), which RCTI and iNews TV are affiliated with, would respect the ruling, said its corporate legal director, Christophorus Taufik. He added that it should be the Communications and Information Ministry’s responsibility to enforce the prevailing regulations against the OTT service providers.

“The Constitutional Court justices said it’s the authority of the ministry to regulate the OTT services,” he said on Thursday, as quoted by kompas.com.

Read also: Streaming services compete in a locked-down world

RCTI and iNews have experienced some backlash from the public following concerns over a media monopoly. Some also worried that the petition would affect social media users in distributing their audio and video content.

Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet) regional coordinator Damar Juniarto said the plaintiffs failed to understand the essential difference between analog and digital technology by placing OTT in a broadcasting context.

“Internet users are both the producers and consumers of content. The social implication of the digital media is that the public has a wider representation,” Damar said. “That’s why regulation of digital content is laxer than that of traditional media.” (dpk)