---

Aisyah Sharifa and Djagardo Simanjuntak as Principal Petitioners at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Blasphemy Law, Thursday (13/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court rejected the petition for the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy petitioned by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and Aisyah Sharifa, students of the Faculty of Law of the University of Indonesia.

“The verdict heard, rejected the petition of the Petitioners in its entirety,” said plenary chairperson Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing, Thursday (13/12). 

The Petitioners had previously argued that Article 156 and Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Article 4 of the Law on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy seemed to have ignored the religious differences in Indonesia and derogated the nature of religion, worship, and tolerance. In addition, the norms whose constitutionality questioned by the Petitioners do not have the right purpose in the criminal paradigm of retributive and utilitarian sanction and actually hinder the true worship of religious people, namely to proclaim the truth of their religion both to those of different religions and to blasphemers. The enactment of the norms may allow people to accuse others of religious blasphemy.

The Court was of the opinion that, as affirmed in its previous decisions, the Constitution of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia would not allow freedom of non-religion, to promote anti-religion, and to insult or denigrate religious teachings and books that constitute sources of religious beliefs, or to denigrate God’s name. On the contrary, the Constitution provides guarantees related to the freedom of religion of its citizens. Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights, inherent in every human being.

The Petitioners had argued that Article 156 and Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law did not have the right objective in the criminal paradigm of retributive and utilitarian sanction and actually hinder the true worship of religious people, namely to proclaim the truth of their religion both to those of different religions and to blasphemers. Responding to the argument, the Court believes that the Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy can be used as basis to prevent abuse of religion and blasphemy through administrative measures, starting from the most lenient up to the most severe.

According to the Court, the conviction of abuse of religion and blasphemy is important because in any form, whether individually or in groups, blasphemy and abuse of religion are acts that cannot be justified legally. This is because no person or institution has the right to abuse religion and treat other religious elements with disrespect, which may lead to public unrest and anger (Court Decision Number 140/PUU-VII/2009). 

Regarding the petitum in which the Petitioners requested that the word "groups" in Article 156 and Article 157 paragraph (1) the Criminal Code be interpreted to not be based on religion, the Court considered that Article 156 of the Criminal Code was a provision on the criminal sanctions that can be imposed on anyone who expresses hostility, hatred, or insult toward one or several groups of the Indonesian people in public. 

The Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code is a provision concerning criminal sanctions that can be imposed on anyone who broadcasts, shows, or attaches publicly written articles or paintings containing statements of hostility, hatred, or insult between or toward groups of Indonesian people, with the aim to disseminate the content to the public or to make them more known. The definition of groups as stated in Article 156 of the Criminal Code is each part of the Indonesian people that is different from one or several other parts because of race, country of origin, religion, residence, origin, descent, nationality, or position according to constitutional law. The definition of groups applies not only to Article 156 of the Criminal Code but also to subsequent articles.

\'\'According to the Court, the request of the Petitioners\' petition regarding the [word] \'groups\' in Article 156 and Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code to be interpreted as not based on religion is unreasonable according to law," said Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo on case No. 76/PUU-XVI/2018.

Furthermore, in response to the review of Article 4 of the Blasphemy Prevention Law was also requested by the Petitioners, the Court affirmed that the constitutional issue in the a quo petition had been submitted for review and had been decided by the Constitutional Court with the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 140/PUU-VII/2009 dated April 19, 2010, that rejected the petition in its entirety, as well as the Constitutional Court Decision Number 84/PUU-X/2012 dated September 19, 2013, that also rejected the petition in its entirety.

Based on the entire elaboration of the legal considerations, the Court was of the opinion that the petition of the Petitioners regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 156 and Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and Article 4 of the Blasphemy Prevention Law groundless according to law. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---