---

Petitioners’ Legal Counsel Fitria Sumarni delivering principal points of petition for judicial review of the Blasphemy Law, Thursday (24/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

Regulations prohibiting religious deviations are contained in Law Number 1/PNPS/1965 on Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) for legal affairs. 25 Ahmadiyya adherents were Petitioners for case Number 56/PUU-XV/2017. The preliminary hearing was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (24/8) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In the principal point of their petition, the Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Blasphemy Law. According to the Petitioners, the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia concerning Warning and Order to Adherents, Members and/or Leading Members of the Indonesian Ahmadiyya Jama\\\'at (JAI) and Members of the General Public (Joint Decree of 3 Ministers) drafted based on the three articles had caused them damages.

The Joint Decree of 3 Ministers established Ahmadiyya as a cult. The Petitioners were directly affected and their right to religion and to worship were restricted and suppressed because of the joint decree. There was a domino effect in the lives of Ahmadiyya adherents, for example the Petitioners can no longer worship in the mosques they built because they were sealed, they cannot record their marriage in Religious Affairs Office (KUA), and they were even evicted from their residences. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that their petition be granted.

"Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 28S paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28I paragraph (2), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution have no binding legal force as long as interpreted and held against citizens in the Ahmadiyya community who only worship in their place of worship internally and not in public," said the Petitioners’ Attorney Fitri Sumarni before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

Judges\\\' Advice

Upon the petition, the Panel of Justices consisting of Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Aswanto provided suggestions for revision. Palguna requested that the Petitioners change their legal standing from individuals to Ahmadiyya as one of the legal entities. If they did not want it changed, he continued, the Petitioners must elaborate the damages they suffered due to the enactment of the articles being reviewed. Palguna also emphasized that the Petitioners not only argued the facts but also explain normatively.

"I would like to stress that one of the things that violated [the Petitioners’] constitutional rights be separated clearly because it is the introduction to the petition. Because, if it is unclear, of course the petition will be unclear, have no legal standing, and the Court will not check the principal point of the petition," he advised.

Meanwhile, Aswanto requested that the Petitioners change their petitum. He emphasized that the Constitutional Court was not a positive legislator so it cannot add norms as petitioned by Petitioners in the petitum.

"This would require the Constitutional Court to be a positive legislator, which is impossible. It means that if [the petitum] is not changed, your petition is unlikely to be granted because the Constitutional Court should not be a positive legislator," he said.

The Petitioners were given 14 workdays to revise their petition. The next trial will hear the revision to the petition.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---