The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on Act No. 8 Year 1992 on Indonesian Film towards The 1945 Constitution on Wednesday (9/1) at 10.00 Western Indonesia Time in the Plennary Room with the agenda of Hearing the Information from Government, Parliament, and related parties (Film Censorship Institution (LSF), Union of Indonesian Film Artists (PARFI), Union of Indonesian Electronic Cinema Artists (PARSI)). The trial was attended by Ir. Jero Wacik, S.E. (Minister of Culture and Tourism), Drs.Lukman Hakim Syaefuddin (The Parliament’s Legal Counsel), Prof. Dr. Moh. Mahfud MD, SH, SU (The Parliament’s Legal Counsel), Titie Said (Chairperson of LSF), Anwar Fuadi (Chairperson of PARSI), and Jenny Rahman (Chairperson of PARFI).

The Petition was filed by five parties who were also members of Masyarakat Film Indonesia or Indonesian Film Community (MFI). The five parties mentioned were, Annisa Nurul Shanty K. (Actress), Muhammad Rivai Riza (Film Producer), Nur Kurniati Aisyah Dewi (Film Producer), Lalu Rois Amriradhiani (Film Festival Organizer), and Tino Saroengallo (Lecturer and Film Director); in their Petitum, the petitioners requested the Constitutional Justice Board to declare that Article 1 number 4 Chapter V, Articlel 33 Paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), Article 34 Paragraph (1), (2), (3), Article 40 Paragraph (1), (2), (3), and Article 41 Paragraph (1) letter b of Act on Indonesian Film so long as it is related to the regulation on censorship violated Article 28C Paragraph (1) and Article 28F of The 1945 Constitution also declare that the aforementioned did not have any binding law.

In the trial, Lukman Hakim Syaefuddin, the representative of the Parliament stated that the existence of Film Censorship as regulated in Article 1 number 4 Chapter V was to bring about the direction and the aim of the film industry. Even if the Act No. 8 Year 1992 on Indonesian Film reduced someone’s rights and freedom, it were merely to fulfill the fair demand based on moral consideration, religious values, security and general orderliness in a democratic society. According to Lukman Hakim Syaefuddin the existence of Article 1 No. 4 Article 33 and Article 34 of the Act No. 8 Year 1992 actually did not violated the Constitution at all, moreover the prohibition was taken in order to decide the aim and direction of Indonesian Film Industry.

Meanwhile the Government’s information delivered by Ir. Jero Wacik, S.E. (Minister of Culture and Tourism), regarding the trial of Act No. 8 Year 1992 on Indonesian Film filed by the Petitioners was considered not focused and not clear especially in the argumentation and/or constructing the loss of the constitutional rights and/or the authorities of the Petitioners as the result of the existence of the regulations a quo, whereas the Petitioners only stated the materials contained in the mentioned paragraphs, articles, and/or parts of Acts requested to be put on trial especially Article 1 number 4, Article 33, Article 34, Article 40 and Article 41 paragraph (1) letter B Act No. 8 Year 1992 on Indonesian Film which was considered not to give any classification of the film genre and the film commercials having been censored.

Besides that, Jero Wacik said that the government did not agree with the argumentations and/or the opinions in the petitum a quo delivered by the Petitioners, because according to the government the regulation in Article 1 number (4), Article 33, Article 34, Article 40 and Article 41 paragraph (1) letter B of Act No.8 Year 1992 on Indonesian Film was made in the effort to give General Prevention to the people so that they could get good, healthy and educating film information and commercials. Jero Wacik also expected that the film and its commercials which was produced, distributed and/or showed to the people or audience did not go against the cultural,moral, general orderliness values and also the religious values.

The government argued that the censoring conducted by the Film Censorship Institution to films and the commercials which did not suit the cultural, moral, general orderliness, ethics and religious values could not easily considered as prohibition for the Petitioners to communicate, store and process the information. In reality, according to Jero Wacik, the Petitioners were given great opportunity and freedom of expression, to improvise and be productive through films and their commercials so long as it was still in the corridor of the existing regulation.

speaking in the same tone as the Government, Titi Said as the Chairperson of LSF said that the LSF tried to protect the great values and cultures of the countries, it was caused by the penetration of outside cultures which were destructive that slowly to cause an abrasion to the national cultures. If the censor mechanism conducted by LSF was considered against the Constitution, then who would have sorted the penetration of outside cultures through the films. In the meantime, Jenny Rahman (Chairperson of PARFI) considered that LSF obviously had worked based on the existing regulations. She said that PARFI itself as a coordinating, uniting and film artists’ creation and efforts directing place would push the film artists dynamics so that they would always be able to work to develop Indonesian film by not leaving Indonesian cultures with full responsibility. PARFI also wished and agreed that LSF was still needed as a control device in order to prevent the people form the possible negative effects in the distribution of the film or the show of the film that was not according to the basic and aim of Indonesian film. In the same opportunity, Anwar Fuadi, Chairperson of PARSI also added that if the films contained sex and religious harassment scenes were not censored and let go how would be the moral of this nation.

Before closing the trial, Head of Justice Board Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H. explained that Prof. Dr. Siti Musdah Mulia, M.A., Gunawan Muhammad, Seno Gumiro Aji Darma, Muhammad Fadrul Rahman, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gusdur), Aril Haryanto, M.A, Jumrotin KS, Dr. Efendi Ghazali, Mira Lesmana, Dian Sastro Wardoyo, and Jafar would be presented as Witnesses or Experts by the Petitioners and also demanded that the government to bring their witnesses and experts in the next trial. Related to some questions from the Justice Board to the Petitioners, Government and the Parliament, Head of Justice Board Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H said that they could be delivered in the next trial or given in written form through the Clerk of the Constitutional Court. (Prana Patrayoga Adiputra/Yogi Djatnika)