Constitutional Court refused to entirely petition filed by Shiite figure from Sampang, Tajul Muluk. The decision to No. 84/PUU-X/2012 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, assisted by eight other constitutional judges on Thursday (19/9).

"Declare rejected the petition of the applicant in its entirety," said Akil at the Plenary Room.

In the Court’s opinion read by Justice Anwar Usman, the Court considered blasphemy Prevention Act is still required even if the formula cannot be said to be perfect. This is because if the blasphemy law repealed Prevention before any other new regulations, it is feared arise abuse and blasphemy which can lead to conflict in society. "Based on the above considerations, the Petitioners’ petition for the Court to declare Section 156a of the Penal Code and Article 4 of the Law on Prevention of blasphemy has no binding legal effect is not unreasonable under the law," explained Anwar.

The petitioners, said Anwar, argued that Article 4 of the Prevention of Blasphemy Law in conjunction with Article 156a of the Penal Code against the principle of legal certainty because there are no restrictions and an explanation of what is meant by the phrase "in public" in the norm. According to the Court, the phrase "in public" has been described in section 1 of Article Explanation blasphemy Prevention Act , ie "In the words of ‘Advance Public’ is meant what is commonly meant by the words of the Book of the Law of Criminal Law . .. ". The phrase "in public" in the text of Article 156a of the Criminal Code is a phrase that is also used in other offenses in the Criminal Code, including Article 156 of the Criminal Code, Article 156 paragraph ( 1 ) of the Criminal Code, and Article 160 of the Criminal Code. The phrase "in public" under Article 160 of the Criminal Code, Article 162 of the Criminal Code and Article 170 of the Criminal Code has been described by R. Susilo in his book entitled "The Book of the Criminal Law as well as the comments – comments "a public place visited or where the public can hear", "in a public place and there are a lot of people / general public", and "where the public can see it".

"Based on these considerations, the Court is the argument of the applicant no legal certainty regarding the limitations and an explanation of what is meant by "in public" the norm quo is not unreasonable under the law," he explained.

According to the Court, the application of Article 156a of the Criminal Code referred to the interpretation of the Petitioners is the scope of the absolute authority of the general court, or an application problem norm, not the issue of the constitutionality of the norm. "Accordingly, the petition for quo interpret article is not legal grounds. Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Court held that the Petitioners’ petition was not unreasonable under the law," said Patrialis. ( Lulu Anjarsari / mh )