Principal Petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Blasphemy Law, Wednesday (13/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court could not accept the petition filed by Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak on Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law). 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, which declares that there was no constitutionality issue in the a quo norm.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, who read out legal considerations, stated that even though it had been ruled that there were no constitutionality issue, the Petitioner re-filed a judicial review  petition of the a quo norm in the case Number 5/PUU-XVII/2019 with additions, i.e. Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Law on Religious Blasphemy. The Petitioner challenged the a quo norm because if it is not revised, there will be potential losses. However, the Court believes the argument made it hard to understand especially what is questioned by the Petitioner. Therefore, Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 10 of the Constitutional Court Law stipulate that the Constitutional Court is only authorized to review the constitutionality of laws against the 1945 Constitution.

“Therefore, it is actually not a substance that can be the object of petition in the Court because the norms of the law in question have been proven and recognized by the Petitioner himself are as constitutional norms,” Justice Enny explained in the ruling hearing at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (13/3/2019), presided over by Chief Justice Aswan Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)