You purchase a 20 GB internet package, use only 12 GB, and then the validity period expires. The remaining 8 GB is still shown as unused data quota, but can no longer be used.
An issue that may previously have been regarded as an ordinary part of using internet services has now been subject to a new limitation by the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court has established a new limitation for telecommunications service providers in treating users’ remaining data quota. Through Constitutional Court Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court declared the provision concerning the determination of telecommunications service tariffs to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force conditionally, insofar as it is not interpreted to require providers to offer service options that ensure users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.
Accordingly, the principal change following this decision is not the abolition of validity periods for internet packages or an obligation for all operators to implement a rollover system. Rather, the change lies in the obligation of providers to offer service options that ensure the protection of users’ remaining data quota.
SUBSTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISION
The provision challenged in this case is Article 28 paragraph (1) under Article 71 number 2 of the Appendix to Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation as a Law.
In simple terms, the provision stipulates that the tariffs for the provision of telecommunications networks and/or telecommunications services are determined by providers based on a formula stipulated by the Central Government.
The issue arose from an experience that is very familiar to everyday internet users: data quota that has already been paid for cannot necessarily be enjoyed in its entirety. When the validity period of a package expires, the remaining data quota may also disappear and can no longer be used. For the Petitioners, this issue was not merely about losing several gigabytes. The loss of remaining data quota may force users to purchase a new package in order to remain connected to the internet, even though the previous quota remains unused and has already been paid for. This condition became even more significant for the Petitioners because the internet was used to support their daily work and activities.
The Petitioners essentially questioned whether data quota that had already been paid for but remained unused could simply lose its benefit merely because the package’s validity period had expired. For them, the issue went beyond the service mechanism itself and concerned legal certainty and the protection of the economic benefits already obtained by users.
The Constitutional Court ultimately did not annul the entire provision. Instead, the Constitutional Court declared the provision conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted as follows:
“The tariffs for the provision of telecommunications networks and/or the provision of telecommunications services shall be determined by telecommunications network providers and/or telecommunications service providers based on a formula stipulated by the Central Government, with the obligation to provide telecommunications service options that ensure users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.”
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court added an interpretation to Article 28 paragraph (1) under Article 71 number 2 of the Appendix to Law Number 6 of 2023. Following this interpretation, the provision concerning tariff determination no longer stands on its own. Providers may continue to determine tariffs based on the formula stipulated by the Central Government, but are subject to the obligation to provide service options that ensure users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.
In other words, the Constitutional Court did not prescribe a single specific mechanism, such as rollover, as the sole means of protecting remaining data quota. What the Constitutional Court determined is the objective of such protection, namely that the remaining data quota must remain active and usable.
DEFINITION OF THE ROLLOVER MECHANISM
The term rollover is important to understand because it is often associated with the protection of remaining data quota. Simply put, rollover is a mechanism that allows unused data quota from one period to be carried over or accumulated into the following period, subject to the applicable service terms.
For example: A person purchases a 20 GB internet package for one period. By the time the validity period expires, only 12 GB has been used. There are still 8 GB remaining.
Under a rollover mechanism, the remaining 8 GB does not immediately disappear, but may be carried over to the following period and used together with the quota provided under the new period.
Accordingly: Initial quota of 20 GB → 12 GB used → 8 GB remaining → the remaining 8 GB may still be used in the following period. This mechanism differs from a scheme under which the remaining data quota can no longer be used once the package’s validity period expires.
However, does the Constitutional Court therefore require all operators to implement rollover? The answer is no.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court did not use the term rollover as the sole mechanism that must be implemented. Instead, the Constitutional Court uses the term “service options”, which must ensure that users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.
Therefore, this decision cannot simply be reduced to the statement that “the Constitutional Court requires all internet packages to use a rollover system.” What is required is the availability of service options that provide protection for users’ remaining data quota.
In its considerations, the Constitutional Court also discussed various possible forms of protection for remaining data quota. Accordingly, rollover may be understood as one mechanism that can ensure remaining data quota remains usable, but it is not the only form expressly prescribed by the Constitutional Court in its ruling.
CHANGES ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISION
The most significant change lies in the position of remaining data quota in the relationship between operators and users. Prior to this decision, the validity period of a package was, in practice, part of the service design offered to consumers. Once the validity period expired, the remaining data quota could also expire in accordance with the terms of the package. However, the Constitutional Court has now established a constitutional limitation on such arrangements.
Telecommunications service providers may continue to determine tariffs based on the formula stipulated by the Central Government, but providers are also required to offer service options that ensure users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.
In other words: The change does not mean that validity periods for all internet packages have been abolished; rather, there is now an obligation to provide service options that protect users’ remaining data quota.
PERIOD OF USE OF REMAINING DATA QUOTA
Not necessarily. The Constitutional Court’s decision does not provide that remaining data quota must remain valid indefinitely. What the Constitutional Court has emphasized is that such remaining data quota must be protected so that it remains active and usable through the service options provided by the provider.
In its considerations, the Constitutional Court even stated that unused remaining data quota must continue to be usable until the quota has been fully exhausted, without being subject to additional fees or charges on the grounds of extending the validity period or for any other reason. This demonstrates that the Constitutional Court’s concern is with the benefit of the data quota already obtained by the user, rather than granting an unlimited validity period.
INTERESTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS (OPERATORS)
The Constitutional Court’s decision does not mean that all freedom of operators in designing telecommunications services has been eliminated. Providers continue to have room to determine their services and tariffs in accordance with the framework established under the prevailing laws and regulations.
Furthermore, in its considerations, the Constitutional Court continues to provide room for the Central Government to establish tariff formulas that may accommodate technological developments, business models, as well as the needs and economic capacity of the public. However, such adjustments must remain grounded in the principles of protection and fair legal certainty with respect to the interests of telecommunications service users.
Accordingly, the decision does not mean: “Operators may no longer offer packages with validity periods.” Rather: “In providing telecommunications services, operators are required to offer options that ensure users’ remaining data quota remains active and usable.”
FORM OF SERVICE OPTIONS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS
This is where the Constitutional Court’s decision still gives providers room to determine the form of services to be offered. The Constitutional Court does not prescribe a specific mechanism that must be used by all operators.
One of the most readily understood forms is rollover, whereby unused data quota may be carried over to the following period. For example, if 8 GB remains from a 20 GB package when the validity period expires, under a rollover mechanism, the 8 GB may still be used in the following period. However, protection of remaining data quota does not necessarily have to be implemented through rollover. An extension of the usage period or another mechanism may also constitute an option, provided that it fulfills the requirement established by the Constitutional Court: the user’s remaining data quota remains active and usable.
Therefore, what should ultimately be assessed is not merely whether an operator provides a “service option,” but whether that option genuinely allows users to continue enjoying the remaining data quota to which they are entitled. Under this approach, the Constitutional Court establishes the protection to be provided, while the technical form of the service may still be determined in its implementation.
CONCLUSION
Constitutional Court Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 does not abolish validity periods for internet packages and does not require all operators to implement rollover. The change lies in the obligation of providers to offer service options that ensure remaining data quota remains active and usable.
Accordingly, operators may continue to determine their service schemes, but must provide options that protect users’ remaining data quota. For consumers, this decision strengthens legal certainty regarding the benefits of services for which they have already paid.
As telecommunications services continue to develop and society becomes increasingly dependent on digital services, business actors and telecommunications service users need to understand not only developments in the services being offered, but also the legal and regulatory implications accompanying such developments.
MNL Law Firm is ready to assist business actors and individuals in understanding and navigating these developments through legal assistance and solutions tailored to their respective needs. For further inquiries or legal services relating to telecommunications, consumer protection, business regulations, and other related legal matters, MNL Law Firm is ready to provide legal assistance and solutions tailored to your needs.
References:
- Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation as a Law.
- Constitutional Court Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025.
Author: Hotmaita Arta Purba, S.H.
Editor: Robby Simamora, S.H.,M.H.