The Constitutional Court conducted a trial for case No. 29/PUU-V/2007 on the exercising of Act No. 8 Tahun 1992 on Film (Act on Film) towards the 1945 Constitution on Wednesday (6/2) at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional Court with the agenda of Viewing Evidences, Hearing Information from the Petitioners’ Witnesses, Indirectly Related Parties (Independent-Confident Film Commission and the Jakarta Art Board -DKJ).

The trial that was opened at 09.00 WIB (16:00 GMT) was started with an undisclosed trial for an hour to watch the film made by one of the Petitioners, Tino Saroenggalo and clips from the Film Censorship Institution (LSF). After that, in the disclosed trial, the Constitution Justice Board heard the information from the Petitioners’ witness among others are, movie actress Dian Sastrowardoyo and a film producer, Mira Lesmana. Meanwhile the experts from the Petitioners’ side among others are, Amir Effendy Siregar, Saban Leo Batubara, Siti Musda Mulia, and Zoemrotin KS. Besides that, the court was also heard information from the Indirectly Related Parties among others are, Marco Kusuma Widjaya from the Jakarta Art Board, Agus Mediarta from the Independent Film Community and from the Jakarta Art Institute.  

The witness from the Petitioners’ side, Mira Lesmana, considered the LSF tend to be authoritarian or undemocratic. “This Institution has the authority to investigate, issue a verdict, then decide whether a film can be shown or not without any dialogue with the filmmaker,” she explained.

Meanwhile, Dian Sastrowardoyo in her testimony said that by assessing the Act on Film did not mean that the Indonesian Film Society (MFI) wanted to make “blue films”, but on contrary they wanted to invite cinematographer to make actual, critical, and creative movies.

The expert from the Petitioners’ side, Saban Leo Batubara, in the trial explained that the press censorship and film censorship had taken away Indonesian citizens’ right to communicate, to get information for self-development and the social environment, also to seek, obtain, and store information by any means of channel available. If the film was carried out without censor it was equal to the press without censor, added Leo, it would probably be able to develop the nations intelligence through actual films compared to the electronic cinemas that make fool of the people and also violent shows, mystical, and mythical that were stated passing the censorship of the LSF.

“The way that was possible to settle this problem among others is by creating a national independent film regulator body the members of which are proposed by public through a fit and proper test by the Parliament and therefore they are responsible to the Parliament. (this) May be better because the core business of the film industry is information, therefore the responsibility to the House of the Representatives rather than to the Government is more democratic,” explained Leo.

At the same occasion, another expert from the Petitioners’ side, Amir Effendy Siregar, stated that the Act on Film was considered authoritarian, repressive, and inconsistent because the scope of the Act a quo covered censorship for all kinds of movies to be presented in electronic media including television but not for widescreen or the cinema. It should have been, continued Amir, that the LSF be the institution to give classification and assess all kinds of film on-screen, not only to cut without any parameters or clear measurement on censorship.

According to Amir, Indonesia could learn from other countries like America and Australia on regulation on film, whether from the categorization and the distribution of films, without forgetting the Indonesian values. “for that, I would suggest that the Government to issue Government Decree on media distribution including films, books, newspapers, and magazines based on Act on Child Protection and Act on Press, or finding another suitable legal way.,” said Amir.

Meanwhile, another expert from the Petitiioners’ side in the field of consumer protection, Zoemrotin KS, stated that the classification conducted by the LSF  so far was not appropriate and needed to be redefined. Zoemrotin took as an example that when the LSF decided the limitation for 17+ age group, then it had already violated children’s right because the age group that could still be considered as children based on Act on Children Protection was until 18 years old. “So when the LSF decide that a film is only for someone 17 years old or above, then the LSF has let the film to be watched by children,” she explained.

Zoemrotin revealed that so far film consumers sought information of a film seeing the name of the director, producer, and the stars, without questioning whether the film watched had passed the censorship or not. Because of that, according to her, what was needed at this time was classification on movie watchers according to the age and importance. “That thing is needed so that all layers of film consumers can get the satisfaction,” she added.

Before closing the trial, the Constitution Justice Board, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H. emphasized that the Government, the Parliament, or Related Parties to make a conclusion within 21 days. “This is necessary for us to decide our decision,” stated Jimly. (Prana Patrayoga Adiputra/Yogi Djatnika)