Samuel Abrijani Pangerapan as Director General of Informatics Application of the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Kominfo) giving the Government\'s information related to the hearing of the judicial review of the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (ITE Law) on Wednesday (1/11) in Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The prohibition against disseminating hate information as contained in Law No. 11/2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions as amended by Law No. 19/2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions (UU ITE) serves to protect the human rights of every citizen.

This was conveyed by the Director General of Informatics Applications of the Ministry of Communication and Informatics (Kominfo) Samuel Abrijani Pangerapan in the material review hearing of Article 28 paragraph (2) and Article 45A paragraph (2) of the ITE Law. The hearing of case No. 76/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (1/11) at the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The third hearing was scheduled to listen to the statements of the House and the Government, but the House was unable to attend.

Samuel explained that the Government is of the opinion that the word "intergroup" contained in the a quo article is intended for provocative cases deliberately causing negative information that trigger disputes or riots on the basis of SARA (tribal affiliations, religion, race, and societal groups). In addition, the provisions of the a quo article are in conformity with Indonesia\'s positive law and the international law on civil and political rights. This positive law aims to regulate the act of spreading hate speech information in the cyber world. The Government\'s claimed that if the word "intergroup" was omitted, it would result in uncertainty and legal vacuum because the enforcement of the phrase is useful to protect and guarantee the human rights of every citizen.

"The word \'intergroup\' in the a quo article is not contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. On the contrary, the a quo word guarantees, protects, and respects the human rights of citizens who belong to groups outside tribal affiliations, religion, and race from the act of spreading hatred. According to the Government, if the a quo phrase was omitted, it would create legal uncertainty and legal vacuum on violations aimed at subjects of groups outside tribal affiliations, religion, and race," Samuel explained before the panel of justices led by the Chief Justice of Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat.

Not Limiting Freedom of Opinion

In addition, Samuel also asserted that the a quo article does not restrict citizens in giving opinions. The a quo article only emphasizes freedom of opinion and the opinion should not be given to spread hatred.

In addition, the word "intergroup" is regarded by the Government as not limiting human rights to personal protection and security, which is argued by the Petitioners. The Government is of the opinion that the a quo article protects the community from the act of spreading hatred against individuals and certain groups of society, which will disturb the security and unity of the nation. "Thus, the a quo article does not criminalize society in conveying freedom of expression. However, it needs to be regulated by taking into account the rights of others and fulfilling the demands of justice in a democratic society," he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief said that the hearing would continue on Monday, November 20, 2017 at 13.30 to hear the statements of the House of Representatives and the Petitioners’ Experts. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)