Mia Amiati as Coordinator of Attorney General of Civil and State Administrative of the Attorney General Office reading the government’s statement in the judicial review of Blasphemy Law, Tuesday (26/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo by PR/Ifa.
A follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Religious Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (26/9) afternoon. The agenda of the hearing was to hear the Government’s statement presented by Mia Amiati as Coordinator of Attorney General of Civil and State Administrative of the Attorney General Office.
On the occasion, Mia explained that the Blasphemy Law did not limit freedom of religion. However, she continued, it regulated the restrictions of expressions or actions showing hostility, abuse, or desecration of a religion. In addition, the a quo law also restricted interpretation and activities that deviated from the subjects of religious teachings in Indonesia.
"The Blasphemy Law does not forbid anyone to individually interpret a religious doctrine or engage in religious activities that resemble a religion embraced in Indonesia. What is forbidden is publicly and intentionally telling, advocating, or seeking general support to do interpretation about a religion adopted in Indonesia," Mia explained in the session led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arif Hidayat.
In addition, Mia claimed the interpretation of a doctrine or a particular rule constitutes everyone’s freedom of thinking. Interpretation can foster faith to something, so that interpretation can lead to truth or potentially to error. Although the interpretation of beliefs on religious teachings is part of the freedom within the international forum, the interpretation must be in accordance with the principles of a religious doctrine through correct methodology based on the sources of the religious teaching in question, i.e. their respective scriptures.
"So, freedom of interpretation of a religion is not absolute. Interpretation that is not based on the general methodology of the adherents of the religion and on the source of scripture will cause a reaction that threatens public security and order when carried out in public," Mia said to the Constitutional Court of Justice.
Mia continued, the state could not determine the correct interpretation of religious teachings. Every religion has commonly internally accepted doctrinal points. Therefore, the determinants of the religious teachings are the internal parties of the respective religions.
Mia explained that Indonesia was a country that adheres to the religions that are not separated from the state. The government has a Ministry of Religious Affairs that serves and protects the healthy growth and development of religions. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has organizations and tools to collect various opinions from within a religion.
"So in this case, the state does not autonomously determine the main points of religious teachings of a religion. It is only determined by agreement of the internal party of religion concerned. Thus, there is no statism in determining the points of religious teachings in the Blasphemy Law," said Mia.
Petition for case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was filed by Indonesians citizen active in the Ahmadiyya community. The Petitioners argued that the norms being reviewed made it difficult for them to perform worship. In addition, the Petitioners mentioned that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Blasphemy Law. According to them, 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 rights to religion and 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 could no longer worship in the mosques they had built because they were sealed or burned down, they could not record their marriage in Religious Affairs Office (KUA), and they were even evicted from their residences.
The Petitioners requested that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Blasphemy Law be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution with constitutional conditions, in particular Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D 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 and having no binding legal force as long as it was interpreted to be against the citizens of the Ahmadiyya community who only worshipped in their own places of worship and not in public.
(Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Tuesday, September 26, 2017 | 18:07 WIB 149