---

Expert statements presented by the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), UGM’s Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies Director, and Lecturer at Faculty of Law of Al Khanif University Jember in the judicial review hearing of Blasphemy Law, Tuesday (20/2) 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) needs to be revised to prevent misinterpretation of the norms in it. This was conveyed by UGM’s Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS) Director, Zainal Abidin Bagir, as the expert presented by the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) in the follow-up hearing of the Blasphemy Law. The fifteenth session of the case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 was held on Tuesday (20/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

According to Bagir, one way of revising the law is if the Constitutional Court (MK) conditionally grants the petition by the Ahmadiyya community. The Constitutional Court, he added, could give a clear interpretation of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Blasphemy Law so as not to create multiple interpretations in practice. He stated the three articles allow vast interpretation of the principal teaching of a religion. This can have serious consequences on religious life in Indonesia as experienced by the Petitioners. 

"The serious consequences of this law [go beyond religious beliefs] because of the people being judged by this law, other rights, such as social, political, economic rights. Because of these three things, in my opinion, the Constitutional Court can provide interpretation," he explained before the Panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat. 

Bagir added that the Ahmadiyya issue is an example of the destruction of internal mechanisms within the Muslim community due to forced application of laws. In fact, he continued, the internal mechanisms of Muslims have been tested against problems, such as the Ahmadiyya. "This, in my opinion, is precisely a loss for Muslims. And once again I believe Muslims have a way [out]; there is no need to fear that their children will be affected; we\'ve lived among differences for so long," he said. 

Meanwhile, a lecturer of the Faculty of Law of Al Khanif University Jember who was also an expert for YLBHI stated the root of the problems experienced by minority religions in Indonesia. He cited problems arising from the clashes of unwritten legal traditions in society that prioritize mutual interests with the dynamics of the development of human rights and religious rights that further highlights individual freedoms. "It is these clashes that then resulted in the dynamics of law and the protection of religious rights in Indonesia seeming as if going against the development of human rights on the protection of minority groups," he explained. 

Taking Pancasila Into Account 

Al Khanif exemplified the influence of certain religious groups on government policies on the protection of religious minorities in various regions of Indonesia. If it is true that Pancasila is the highest source of law, then the phrase "religious values" listed in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as one of the restrictions on human rights should be interpreted as religious values ​​that still pay attention to the values ​​of humanism in Pancasila . 

"If there is an interpretation of such restrictions solely to limit the religion of individuals or groups that are considered inconsistent with the interpretation of the majority religion or the interpretation of religion of a particular group, then the interpretation is not in line with Pancasila because it is contaminated by the concept of theocracy," he said.

The Petitioners are Ahmadiyya adherents who claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Blasphemy Law. In their petition, they claim 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. The Ahmadiyya adherents feel a domino effect, 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 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)

---