---

Several visitors crying after listening to the verdict of the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 1965 on the Religious Prevention, Abuse, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law), Monday (23/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The provision on the prohibition against religious blasphemy as contained in Law No. 1/1965 on Religious Prevention, Abuse, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) aligns with the 1945 Constitution. This was confirmed by the Constitutional Court (MK) in Decision No. 56/PUU-XV/2017 read on Monday (23/7) afternoon.

In the verdict, the Panel of Constitutional Justices rejected the petition filed by Ahmadiyya adherents. "Rejects the Petitioners\' petition for the whole," said Chief Justice Anwar Usman as chairman of the plenary ruling hearing.

The Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Blasphemy Law. They claimed that 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 Ahmadiyya adherents felt 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.

In the legal consideration, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna confirmed that the substance of the petition is about the Ahmadiyya, but rather the judicial review of the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Law. According to the Court, this is important because the a quo petition filed by the Petitioners from the Ahmadiyya community. The Ahmadiyya community in the context of the a quo petition only means that the petition was filed by Ahmadiyya adherents, who claimed that their constitutional rights were impaired by the enactment of the norm of the a quo law.

"That means the connection of the a quo petition to the Ahmadiyya is in relation to the legal standing of the Petitioners. The substance of the constitutionality issue of the norm of law petitioned for review applies to every citizen of Indonesia. Thus, any Indonesian citizen who feels deprived of their constitutional rights by the enactment of the norm of the law can file a petition to the Court," Justice Palguna explained.

Not Constitutionality Issue of the Norm

Meanwhile, in the legal consideration regarding the substance of the petition, Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto explained that the Court is of the opinion that the Blasphemy Law, in particular Article 1, has explicitly determined the subjects subject to the prohibition from the actions referred to in the a quo norm, that is, persons who recount, recommend, and work toward general support for interpretations that deviate from certain religious teachings. The a quo norm does not prohibit or restrict a person\'s right to religion and worship according to his or her religion. The prohibited conduct is interpreting religious teachings that deviate from the points of the religious teachings in question, where the results of the interpretation are told, encouraged, and supported in public.

"Thus, what was argued by the Petitioners as the failure of the state to distinguish between people who deliberately in public recount, advocate for, and seek support to spread hatred and hostility against people who exercise their constitutional rights to religion and worship, is actually a matter of [factual proof] or implementation, not the constitutionality issue of the norm of law," Justice Aswanto explained.

Justice Aswanto added that the right of a person to contribute to the life of nation and state through a particular religious organization as argued by the Petitioners is not at all prohibited or limited by the Blasphemy Law. The only thing restricted is the right and freedom of thought and attitude that can be categorized as interpreting certain religious teachings deviating from the main points of a religion\'s teachings.

"Whereas between the right of freedom of religion and misinterpretation of religious teachings by seeking public support for it, [both] must be distinguished, as stated earlier. Whereas based on the above legal reasons, Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 cannot be qualified as contradictory to Article 28C Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution," Justice Aswanto stated. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---