Experts presented by the Government, M. Ridwan Lubis and Soefyanto, in judicial review hearing of the Religious Blasphemy Law, Tuesday (19/12) in Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The PNPS Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and/or Blasphemy should be understood that the act of abuse and/or blasphemy is a serious matter. This was conveyed by M. Ridwan Lubis as Government Expert in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) filed by the Ahmadiyya Community. The ninth session of Case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (19/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Ridwan explained that the Blasphemy Law is still needed to maintain national policy unity in handling deviations of the noble meanings of religious freedom. As an effort to maintain national harmony and human dignity, the Blasphemy Law needs to be further reinforced by formulating more concrete provisions on the meaning of abuse and/or blasphemy. "So the government apparatus and the community have measurable criteria in order not to cause a multi-interpretation attitude," he explained before the Panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

According to Ridwan, the Blasphemy Law has no correlation with restriction of religious freedom. This is because freedom of religion including choosing and living a religious belief is the right of everyone that is guaranteed by law. Therefore, he continued, when a person speaks to himself regarding his religious belief, it is a human right guaranteed by legislation.

"However, when the personal freedom was brought by himself, at that time there is a limitation to keep social harmony and public order so as not to clash with freedoms of others. Thus, the PNPS Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 speaks only of the conduct when one speaks with others outside of himself," said the Professor of Comparative Religion at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah.

Then, an official at the Agency of Counseling, Development, and Preservation of Marriage (BP4) of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Soefyanto, who served as a Government Expert, explained the that Blasphemy Law is a foothold for the maintenance of religious harmony. One of the objectives of the issuance of this law, he continued, is so that religious peace can be enjoyed by all the people in all parts of Indonesia and to protect the people from blasphemy or humiliation. "In other words, this law was issued to maintain religious harmony, both internal harmony between religious communities and interfaith believers," he explained.

The Petitioners claimed 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 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 burned or sealed, they cannot record their marriage in Religious Affairs Office (KUA), and they were even evicted from their residences. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the 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 they are interpreted to be against the citizens of the Ahmadiyya community who only worship in their places of worship internally and not in public. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)