The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on case No. 29/PUU-V/2007 about the trial of Act No. 8 Year 1992 on Filming (Act on Filming) towards the 1945 Constitution, on Thursday (24/1) at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitution Court with the agenda of Hearing Information from Witnesses and Experts from the Petitioners side, the Government side and Related Parties. The case was filed by five Petitioners, Annisa Nurul Shanty K. (Actress), Muhammad Rivai Riza (Riri Reza) film director, Nur Kurniati Aisyah Dewi (Nia Dinata) film producer, Lalu Rois Amriradhiani (Film Festival Organization), and Tino Saroengallo (Lecturer as well as Film Director). The Petitioners pleaded the Constitution Justice Board to declare that Article 1 number 4 Chapter V, Article 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 Act on Filming, so long as it is related to the stipulation about Censorship, violated Article 28C paragraph (1) and Article 28F The 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners argued that the guidelines and the criteria for film censorship contained in the Government Regulation No. 7 Year 1994 on Film Censorship Institution and Regulation of Minister of Culture and Tourism No. PM.31/UM.001/MKP/05 on the Procedure of Film Censorship Institution and the Procedure of Censorship had never been used by the Film Censorship Institution. Besides that, the Petitioners also stated that the censorship conducted by the institution by refusing entirely a film due to a thematic and / or eliminating by cutting parts of the film, in form of title, theme, dialogue, certain pictures and/or sounds, had damaged the constitutional court of the Petitioners as stakeholders in Indonesian film industry. Besides that, the Petitioners also argued that so far there had been no clear parameter or scaling on censorship.

At the beginning of the trial, Seno Gumira Ajidarma, a film expert proposed by the Petitioner said that there were two contexts in film making techniques, the encoding technique which is used by the director in order to make the moviewatchers felt happy, funny or even touched. Meanwhile in with the second technique, that was decoding, the director expected the moviewatchers could break the codes given. The ground for the solution according to Seno, was the discourse of each moviewatcher, when they felt happy, laughed and felt touched it meant that the meaning of the film was delivered. “But not all moviewatchers can get the meaning of the codes,” explained Seno.

Related to the Film Censorship Institution, Seno said that the institution was a representation of the State and the regulations acting as the determinant factors (discourse creator), where the film that had passed the censorship could be watched and the ones failed could not be watched. In this context, the determinant factors were not only the State and the regulations but also the ideology market and education institutions. So, it could be used as analog that the Film Censor Institution as a censor island in the Sea of information, where the information had been in the society. Therefore a new social consensus was needed for the Film Censor Institution.

Another expert, Goenawan Mohammad, said that there was an impression for everybody who were looking for a freedom of expression that they wanted an unlimited independence. As he quoted a statement of a writer, a senior press figure who reminded how dangerous an independence was, but it was more dangerous in the condition without indenpendence. “We experienced this in the new order era when the press was not free, there was deception and violence,” said Goenawan.

According to Goenawan, doing a censor on a film was not an easy job, if the part eliminated was an important context of the film. If the cutting did not consider the context of the film, explained Goenawan, it would cause people (movielovers) could not see the film through small fragments. “The cutting (the result of the censorship) can mean nothing, but as the result the context of the film can be gone,” he explained.

Meanwhile culture experts Taufik Ismail speaking as expert from the government said there were six characters brought by the changing: permissive, addictive, brutalistic, transgressive (breaking the rule behaviour), hedonistic (fun-loving behaviour), and materialistic (money oriented behaviour). “In this case, film can be used as a media taking part in moral degradation by the expression of passion and lust shown through film or electronic cinema,” he added.

In the opinion of the culture figure with great attention on social problems, even though a film brought various kinds of iinformation fo the society, but there were many disadvantages that a film brought.

In the same occassion, Taufik also described the fact that at the moment, Indonesia had become the biggest blue film (a film predominantly containing sexual scenes) producers in the world. Several negative impacts that resulted in negaive attitudes because of the distribution of pornographic vcd-es, were free sex amonng the youth, raping cases, and abortion.

“Here the Film Censor Institution is considered as a fence that prevents children and adults to fall into the deep abyss, which filled with rocks and wild animals at the bottom. If they fall down it will cause them broken bones, concusion, or permanet disability. Therefore, let’s keep our children out of the abyss,” reminded Taufik.

Another experts proposed by the government, Fetty Fajriati considered that the Act on FIlming was in a corridor that did not violate Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. She explained that even though in Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution allowed everybody to make creation, however it should consider the religious norms and the cultural norms.

“The Films and electronic cinema in Indonesia many of them contains sexual, violence and mystical scenes. There have been many people sending protest letters to the KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) on those shows. Even lately there was a kid commiting suicide insipired by the cartoon show “Naruto” which, until now, has never been undergone a film censorship. Please imagine if the film censorship Institution is dismissed. Even with the existence of Film Censorship, the shows that caused moral decadence are still free,” said the member of Indonesian Broadcasting Commission.

According to the ex-braodcaster of a TV station, film was an element of cultural development that should be preserved, but in the making still needed to pay attention to the existing legal norms.

For National Film
In the trial, besides hearing the experts, the information from the indirectly related parties was also heard, such as National Film Consideration Board (BP2N). Senior Artist , Deddy Mizwar, speaking for the BP2N, considered the problems in film were more than the existence of LSF which was considered preventing the freedom of experience of the film practisioners.

“Because of that I actually want to ask whether the Petitioners are asking for a development in film industry or wanting a freedom of expression. Meanwhile actually the freedom itself should be regulated. So i disagree if the Film Censorship should be dismissed, because it will cause irregular film, can be distributed freely,” claimed the leading actor in Naga Bonar.

Even so, according to the actor, director as well as a film producer, in the future there had to be a change and improvement in the performance of LSF which recently was considered less appreciating taste of arts. “Nowadays BP2N has initiated a revision on the regulations in the Act of Filming, especially those that regulates the LSF. The changes are expected to make the improvement and development of national films come true,” he explained.

The trial that lasted for five hours was closed by further agenda of hearing the witnesses of each side, the Petitioners and the Government also hearing comments on the information given by the Petitioners and the Government. “the Board (of Justice) will also hold a special trial where we will see the parts of the film censored by the LSF”, declare the Chief of the Constitution Justice Board, Jimly Asshiddiqie before closing the trial. [Andhini Sayu Fauzia/Yogi Djatnika]