Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Digital revolution has altered the manner in which public authority is administered and how citizens engage with public services, partake in democratic activities, and assert their constitutional rights. This research examines the effects of digital transformation on the constitutional rights of customary law communities and delineates Indigenous Data Sovereignty within the Indonesian legal system. Contemporary studies on digital constitutionalism mostly emphasise individual rights, state power, and the governance of digital platforms, but Indigenous Data Sovereignty discourse specifically underscores collective management of Indigenous data. However, the relationship between these two fields remains insufficiently developed in Indonesia, particularly with communal data, indigenous wisdom, and cultural identity. This research employs a normative legal approach utilising statutory and conceptual frameworks. Primary and secondary legal texts were collected through library research and analysed qualitatively. The findings suggest that digital transformation improves cultural preservation, information availability, civic participation, and public service provision. Concurrently, it fosters unequal digital accessibility, administrative exclusion, diminishment of community control over collective data, and the unauthorised utilisation of indigenous knowledge without authorisation or fair benefit-sharing. Indonesia’s personal data protection framework primarily emphasises identifiable individuals and is deficient in explicit restrictions concerning communal data or collective detriment. This research contends that Indigenous Data Sovereignty should be founded on recognising communal data and customary law communities as collective rights-holders, employing consent based on traditional practices, guaranteeing community governance over data access and use, instituting benefit-sharing, performing collective impact assessments, ensuring institutional oversight, and delivering effective remedies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Febrianty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: