The application of Article 156 is contrary to the penal provisions of material and formal criminal provisions. The insertion of the provisions of Article 156a of the Criminal Code is contrary to the provisions of national law, international, and fundamental human rights of the formal and the material. It is delivered by M. Jamin Ginting as Petitioner Expert of Case Number 84/PUU-X/2012 on trial judicial review of Act 1/PNPS No. 1965 on Prevention of Abuse and / or blasphemy [Section 4] of the 1945 Constitution on Wednesday (5/3).

"Determination of Article 156a between Article 156 and Article 157, there is no synchronization between the chapters before and after Article 156a. This is because the previous and subsequent chapters are not arranged how to implement the rules of religion and religious desecration," said Ginting in the presence of the judges, chaired by Muhammad Alim.

According to Ginting, Article 1 of Law No. 5 of 1969 which stipulates that Presidential Decree (Presidential Decree) No. 1 of 1965 to Act 1/PNPS No. 1965 on Prevention of Abuse and / or blasphemy, the law is conditional, so it must be updated the condition of the country is safe. Meanwhile, materially, by national and international regulatory instruments, the provisions of Article 156a is contrary to the Constitution of 1945 Article 29 paragraphs (2) of the Constitution of 1945.

"The government is still maintaining Act 1/PNPS 1965 on the Prevention, Abuse, and / or blasphemy, formal legally is a mistake," he explained.

Meanwhile, the other applicant Expert, Syamsu Rizal Pangabean describes the use of Article 156a should be regulated as tightly as possible so as not to become a tool of the parties involved in religious conflict. Because when that happens, said Syamsu, the state is no longer the manager that resolves conflicts or conflicts.

"However, being part of the parties to the conflict. Article 156a better eliminated and our national capacity and resources directed toward religious conflict resolution that is more oriented to conflict resolution and restorative justice," he said.

In principal petition, containing the provisions of Article 156a of the Criminal Code charges were too broad norms and interpretations that have no legal certainty on the elements of the chapter, so for the definition of "publicly" is subjective and cannot be measured, it causes a person who issued the mind verbally and in writing a different perspective to the majority of people in their homes can be charged with desecration, pollution and defamation against a religion as it did in the Applicant. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)