THE REASON TO AMANDMENT OF ARTICLE 27 PARAGRAPH (1), ARTICLE 28 PARAGRAPH (1) AND (2) OF THE ITE LAW THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATION OF THE ITE LAW IN THE TIME OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC FOR LEGAL CERTAINTY

Indonesian Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 (ITE Law) provides benefits for the community and the business world on justice, legal certainty, and legal protection for activities in cyberspace using electronic media. However, there is an assumption that several articles in the ITE Law have multiple interpretations so that it is potentially to criminalize someone and make law enforcers have different perceptions. The formulation of the problem that the author raises are, first, what is the urgency of changing articles that are considered to have multiple interpretations in the ITE Law during the Covid-19 pandemic? Second, what is the ideal legal product to deal with articles that are considered to have multiple interpretations? The method used is a normative juridical method, the authors use secondary data and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the first research shows that the interpretation of the ITE Law alone is not sufficient and must be revised to support the amendment of the ITE Law. The second research result is that an appropriate legal product is a legally binding legal product for law enforcement officials in conducting investigations, prosecutions, and judicial process, namely Supreme Court Regulations and Attorney General Circulars.