---

Chairman of the National Commission on Violence Against Women Azriana as Relevant Party delivering her statement in the material review hearing of the Law on the Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Religious Blasphemy on Tuesday (28/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up session of the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Religious Blasphemy on Tuesday (28/11) afternoon. The hearing was to hear the statement of the National Commission on Violence Against WomenAzriana as a Relevant Party.

Azriana explained that the Blasphemy Law is a norm that violates the constitutional guarantee for citizens. For example, guarantee of legal certainty, freedom of religion, security and protection from the threat of fear to do or not to do something constituting a human right, as well as freedom from discrimination as set forth in Article 28D through I and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

"In the Constitutional Court Decision on the judicial review of this law before, namely Cases No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 and No. 84/PUU-X/2012, it is said that the a quo law is still required. But the draft is not perfect, so it still needs to be refined," Azriana explained to the Panel of Justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Further, Azriana confirmed that human rights can be limited. However, in limiting it, the state is faced with several strict prerequisites of which feasibility must be tested by the state, including in this case by the Constitutional Court. In implementing the limitation, the state is bound by rules that should not be ignored, including in the exercise of its responsibilities in the protection, improvement, enforcement, and fulfillment of a person\'s rights.

"The matters stipulated in Article 1 of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 are limitation that falls within the category of rights that cannot be restricted or reduced under any circumstances, namely the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and the choice of religion as set forth in Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Azriana.

Giving Space

Meanwhile, Catur Wahyudi as the Petitioner’s Expert delivered his statement as a sociologist who has considerable interest in the Ahmadiyya followers problem in Indonesia, whose existence is considered controversial, and even considered heretical and misleading by mainstream Islam.

"The reform era that took place in Indonesia became an era of political change into the realm of democracy with a steady stream of human rights issues. Therefore, this era actually gave space that is loose enough for the Ahmadiyya followers at that time as well as for its members to devote more to the people of this country," said Catur.

However, Catur continued, amidst the vast stream of democracy and human rights in the country, the pressure experienced by the Ahmadiyya has not subsided. Threat by threat continues to come, from the destruction of places of worship, physical violence, and to even murder. It all started from the Government records that had initially stated that the presence of the Ahmadiyya followers in Indonesia received rejection from the Muslim community.

"The rejections are present in the form of objection to the destruction of buildings, such as Ahmadiyya-owned houses and mosques in various regions. While the cases experienced by the Petitioners signify the denial of the right of every citizen to embrace a faith and worship in accordance with their belief, which should be protected by law," said Catur.

Catur explained, the existence of such cases is a sociological fact that is constructed by the understanding of a number of citizens or even organizations in the Islamic society that oppose the Indonesia Ahmadiyya followers. So such opposing interpretation influences views, opinions, and even actions that can be against the law with a feeling of upholding the truth.

The petition No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was filed by an Indonesian citizen active in the Ahmadiyya community. The Petitioners argue that the norms being reviewed make it difficult for them to perform worship. In addition, the Petitioners claim that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the 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 are detrimental to the Petitioners. The Joint Decree of 3 Ministers establishes 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---