Principal Petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak delivering subjects of the petition of the judicial review of Blasphemy Law, Tuesday (22/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court once again held a hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) on Tuesday (22/1)in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 5/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak was presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, along with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Saldi Isra.

Petitioner Zico said that he had previously filed for the judicial review of the same in relation to Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law and it had been decided in Decision No. 76/PUU-XVI/2018. He accepted the ruling, which stated that the article on blasphemy was constitutional but needed urgent changes. However, until the current petition was submitted, the legislators had not made any changes. 

"As a result, the Petitioner considered that this is detrimental to the constitutionality of the Petitioner due to the unconstitutional lack of revision of the article on blasphemy. Therefore, the constitutional impairment of the Petitioner, which had previously been elaborated and contained in the decision, remains," explained Zico, who is in his sixth semester at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. 

Furthermore, Zico explained that in the a quo case, the Petitioner no longer questioned the constitutionality of the substance of the article, but of the lack of revision of Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Law on Religious Blasphemy. "Delays of the a quo articles have caused injustice to those who are victims of \'... vigilante events or persecution..." (vide page 33 of Decision Number 76/PUU-XVI/2018) or victims of "misinterpretation in practice..." (vide page 304-305 of Decision Number 140/PUU-VII/2009) so that it has reflected ‘the legal maxim justice delayed is justice denied,’" said Zico. 

Zico then stressed the urgent need for a revision of the Religious Blasphemy Law because of the unconstitutionality of delay of law revision by the legislators. Therefore, it is contrary to the principles of the rule of law and also does not provide fair legal protection. Thus, through the petitum the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Law on Religious Blasphemy to remain constitutional insofar as changes are carried out within a maximum of three years. 

Legislators 

Responding to the case, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said about the need for the Petitioner to pay attention to the national legislation program, which is the domain of the legislators. This is related to the revision of the law requested by the Petitioner in the a quo case. "After reading the petition, [I found that] this is more a request for an immediate revision of the law. As for the reason for the petition, can the Petitioner elaborate further to convince the Court that with the implementation of the amendment to the law by legislator it will be related to the issue of constitutionality?" she asked. 

The same thing was also conveyed by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams and Saldi Isra, who requested that the Petitioner provide an argument that could truly convince the Court that if a certain time limit in revising the law was not implemented, it would be unconstitutional. 

Before concluding the trial, Justice Enny reminded the Petitioner to submit revision to the petition at the latest by Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)