Principal Petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak during an interview after the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Blasphemy Law, Wednesday (6/2) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) on Wednesday (6/2/2019) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra, Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak  conveyed several points of revision on the petition. The revision includes additional rationale and reason for unconstitutionality that requires revision of Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Law on Religious Blasphemy within three years.

Through case No. 5/PUU-XVII/2019, Zico elaborated that the revision must comply with the principle that the safety of the people shall be the supreme law (salus populi suprema lex). The articles were also deemed contrary to the legal theory by Lon Fuller on the establishment of legislation. “Based on that, there is unconstitutionality because revision [on the articles] was not carried out. So, [the problem is not] the articles on religious blasphemy themselves,” said Zico, who is in his sixth semester at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. 

Factually, Zico added, the revision of the law could be completed in one year through prolegnas prioritas. Therefore, the three-year time was seen as the most effective deadline for three reasons. First, it is sufficient as it is neither too long nor too short for legislators. Second, it marks the start of new legislators’ term of office so that it can be included in the 2020–2024 program. Last, it is pursuant to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 80/PUU-XV/2017 that declared three years as the deadline for law revision.

In the previous session, the Petitioner had conveyed that he had previously filed for a similar judicial review petition in relation to Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law, which 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. The Petitioner considered it detrimental to the constitutionality of the Petitioner due to the unconstitutional lack of revision of the article on blasphemy. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)