Abdul Chair Ramadan as Relevant Party on Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah delivering his statement in the follow-up session of the judicial review of the Law on Religious Blasphemy on Wednesday (31/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Law No. 1/1965 on Religious Prevention, Abuse, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) when observed philosophically is not contradictory, even in harmony and in line, with ideals of the law in the Constitution. This was conveyed by Abdul Chair Ramadan as Expert for the Relevant Party in the 13^th session of case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 held on Wednesday (31/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

As an expert of the Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah, Abdul said that to protect religious teachings, the state requires action or declaration against acts that attack the interests of religions. Therefore, he continued, the state set a number of norms that apply in the penal law (ius punale) and the right to punish (ius puniendi) as a form of handling crimes that occur in society.

In addition, the criminal legal expert explained that the religion abuse as practiced by the Ahmadiyya consciously (dolus directus) can lead to religious blasphemy. When there is religious blasphemy, Abdul continued, the handling is different from that in case of abuse of religion. Therefore, there is a need for a strong warning in the form of a Joint Decree against religion abuse as intended in Article 1 of the Blasphemy Law.

“It should be understood that the term religion abuse is intended to codify the enforceability of Article 4 of Law No. 1/1965 to be subsequently included in the Criminal Code as Article 156A, specifically in letter a. Thus, the insertion of Article 4 of the PNPS Law is to bring together the preceding articles, Articles 156 and 157. And in accordance with the title, there is the phrase prevention, abuse, and/or blasphemy. So abuse can cause blasphemy, but blasphemy can stand alone," he said before the Panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

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)