---

Agus Sudibyo and Muktiono (left to right) after being sworn in as an Experts presented by the Relevant Party, the National Commission on Violence Against Women, in the material judicial review hearing of Religious Blasphemy Law, Wednesday (17/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

As a result of the enactment of Law No. 1/1965 on the Prevention, Diffusion, and/or Religious Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) there has been exclusion, discrimination, and neglect of minority religions. This was conveyed by Agus Sudibyo as Expert for the Relevant Party in the material judicial review hearing of Blasphemy Law filed by the Ahmadiyya Community. The eleventh session of Case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (17/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In his statement as an Expert presented by National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan), Agus said that although the Blasphemy Law is not intended to exclude or neglect minority groups, the facts show that there is an impact arising from the enactment of the law.

"The regulation affects the elimination or restriction of the minority\'s constitutional rights related to the right to religion and to exercise their respective beliefs, the right to freedom from violence and fear, the right to survival and life, the right to personal and family protection, the right to liberation from discriminatory treatment, and others," explained Chairman of the Anti-Hoax Journalist Network (JAWAH).

According to Agus, the judicial review of the Blasphemy Law as conducted by the Petitioners is an important step to rehabilitate the rights and sense of justice of minority people who have been affected by the enactment of the law. The review, he added, also urged the re-inclusion of the minority groups as part of Indonesian citizens without hierarchy and discrimination.

The Petitioners\' petition, Agus also considered, is important to maintain the legitimacy of democracy or the legitimacy of the government\'s ability to run democracy. He explained that the disregard to violations of the minority\'s constitutional rights as experienced by the Ahmadiyya is a recognition that the state is not successful in carrying out democracy.

"So any tendency to abandon violations of those rights actually creates a de-legitimating effect on democracy and the ability of the state to run democracy. Minority groups such as the Ahmadiyya are vulnerable to discrimination in public services," he said.

Not in Line with the 1945 Constitution

Meanwhile, another Expert for the Relevant Party, namely Muktiono, claimed the Blasphemy Law not in line with the intent and meaning of the provisions of Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution that allows religion as a basis or reason to establish the law as an instrument of limitation of a right. According to Muktiono, the religious teachings used as the basis or the source of reference for the regulation of restrictions should be inclusive or open. This is so that the rules can fairly accommodate the religious values ​​or teachings of diverse religious communities and not the bias of power relations.

"In fact, the P3A Law (Blasphemy Law) with categorization of religion and politics, official recognition of the country by itself has an exclusive character that resulted in the marginalization of the principle of equality before the law and government as regulated in Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945Constitution," he explained.

The Petitioners who were Ahmadiyya adherents claimed 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. Therefore, 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. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---