---

Issues of religion and religious life in Indonesia were something sensitive. Different interpretations of a religion can cause conflict or conflict between religious groups. For example, the differences in sects in Islam can also lead to disunity among the people, even though each has a clear legal basis. Moreover, the difference rests on arbitrary interpretations that rely on logic.

Prevention blasphemy law intended to provide protection to the public in order to maintain peace and harmony in relationships inter and intra religious. "Prevention Act blasphemy is not intended to curb the freedom of religion, but rather to provide guidelines on prevention, abuse, and or defamation of religion."

The statement was delivered by Prof. Dr. Abdul Djamil, MA, Director General of the Islamic Guidance Ministry of Religious Affairs, while delivering the Government’s statement at the hearing in the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (12/18/2012). Session No. 84/PUU-X/2012 the principal case of Article 156a of the Code of Penal Code (Code) and Article 4 of Law No. 1965 on Prevention 1/PNPS Abuse and / or blasphemy, was filed by Tajul Muluk aka H. Ali Morteza, Hassan Alaydrus, Ahmad Hidayat, Umar Shahab, and Sebastian Joe.

Article 156a of the Criminal Code states, "Punishable by imprisonment for ever five years whoever intentionally publicly issued feelings or acts: a. which in principle is hostility, abuse or desecration of a religion followed in Indonesia, b. with the intention that that person did not adopt any religion as well, which based on Belief in God Almighty. "

Article 4 of the Law on Prevention of blasphemy stated: "In the Book of the Law of Criminal Law held a new clause which reads as follows:" Article 156a Punishable by imprisonment for five years anyone ever intentionally publicly issued feelings or acts: a. which essentially hostile, misuse or desecration of a religion followed in Indonesia, b. with the intention that that person does not adhere to any religion, which based on the Lordship of the Almighty. "

Abdul Djamil continued, the Government worrying if the request is granted Tajul al Muluk, because according to the Government may create chaos and legal vacuum. "So it can cause anxiety, tension, disharmony that leads to horizontal conflicts between faiths and even can cause seeds of disintegration," said Abdul Djamil.

Related provisions of Article 4 of the Prevention of blasphemy, the Government agreed with Dr. Mudzakir contained in the Court’s reasoning in Decision No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 states that the provisions of Article 4 of the Law on Prevention of blasphemy is a form of amendments to the Criminal Code, which adds Section 156A. Criminal law norms in Article 156A in the letter is a legal norm that determines sanctions for misconduct, which because of its inherent evil deeds prohibited. The criminal nature of the act arises because it is evil. The nature of evil is hostility, abuse, and / or desecration of religion.

Government response to the arguments of the Petitioners stating the phrase "in public" is subjective and cannot be measured. According to the Government, the element "in public" in Article 156a of the Criminal Code contained in many other Articles of the Criminal Code, including Article 156 of the Penal Code, Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 160 of the Penal Code. The government cites R. Susilo in his "Book of the Criminal Justice Act and the comments-comments are," which is "in public" is the act where it can be seen and visited by many people or in public places (page 132); places visited by the public or where the public can hear (page 136), in a public place and there are a lot of people or the general public (p. 138): in a public place can be seen (page 146).

"Based on the constraints mentioned above, then according to the terms of the Government in public under Article 156A of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 4 of the Law Prevention blasphemy is clear and is open to multiple interpretations," said Abdul Djamil.

Then the Government response to the arguments of the Petitioners stating elements emit feelings or acts that are hostile or abuse and / or desecration of a religion which is considered to be open to multiple interpretations and does not clearly reject the measuring. The government in this case explains, elements emit feelings or does something that is hostility towards any religion may be understood as an express or indicate the action that could be considered hostile, hateful, insulting, or condescending, which can lead to disputes, quarrels, fights, disturbances, even a battle between religious groups. While the definition by removing the feelings or actions that are misused and / or desecration of a religious meaning is as defined in Article 1 of the Prevention of blasphemy, which is doing the interpretation of a religion followed in Indonesia or conduct religious activities of that religion, the interpretation and activities which deviate from the teachings of that religion.

The notion deviated from the prescribed religious teachings in the scriptures, as in Islam, Al-Quran and al-Hadith. Even if there is an understanding of the scriptures that are less obvious and have to be interpreted, the interpretation should not be done by careless people, but should be by the people who have the authority or scientific capacity to interpret the teachings of a religion.

Interpretation of a religion by a person or group of people did not have the scientific capacity to produce a distorted interpretation and can lead to hostility, abuse or desecration of a religion. "Therefore, the state cannot allow the situation, because it can disturb security and order in the community," said Abdul Djamil. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh)

---