Imdadun Rahmat and Jayadi Damanik presented by the Petitioners to give their testimony in the judicial review hearing on the Blasphemy Law on Monday (23/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Violation of the right to freedom of religion and belief toward minorities, especially religious groups that are considered heretics, caused by the enactment of laws and regulations, are not in line with the guarantee of religious freedom prescribed by the constitution.

This was expressed by human rights activist Imdadun Rahmat as Expert presented by Ahmadiyya in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Religious Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law). The fifth hearing of Case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (23/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Imdadun also explained that the Blasphemy Law destroys the state\\'s position as protector of all religions and beliefs based on Pancasila and legitimizes the interventionist and discriminatory actions by state apparatus. Imdadun stated that this law should only prohibit the blasphemy of religions. "It turns out that this Blasphemy Law also contains a prohibition of religious interpretations that are considered deviating from the principles of religious teachings and this is uncommon. Therefore, human rights activists consider this law as a whole problematic and have demanded that it be repealed," he said before the panel of justices led by the Constitutional Court Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Further, Imdadun explained that the Blasphemy Law has the potentials to cause problems, such as limiting the right of freedom of religious leaders or clergies in carrying out their duties to nurture and educate their respective community. This is related to the articles that can be interpreted as prohibition for someone to interpret another religion different from theirs, in front of many people of their faith both directly and indirectly, using the arguments of their own religion.

Multiple Interpretations

The Petitioners also presented another human rights activist, Jayadi Damanik, who revealed that the Blasphemy Law was problematic because it caused multiple interpretations. The legislators expected the Blasphemy Law to prevent the abuse or blasphemy of religions. However, he continued, because the norms contained in the law over time proved to be blurred leading to multiple interpretations, the a quo law has deviated from its original intention.

"It was preventive originally, but then turned to be repressive. I’m borrowing the terms used by Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick in 1978. It is a consequence of religious discrimination as a result of the blurring and/or multi-interpretation of the a quo law. Therefore, this law is categorized as a violation of human rights," he explained.

The Petitioners who are Ahmadiyya followers argue that their constitutional rights are 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 harm. 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. Therefore, the Petitioners request 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. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)