---

Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict in case No. 82/PUU-XVIII/2020 on the judicial review of Law No. 44 of 2008 on Pornography, Wednesday (25/11/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 44 of 2008 on Pornography filed by Pina Aprilianti. “The [Court] rejects the Petitioner’s entire petition,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of case No. 82/PUU-XVIII/2020

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court stated that the issue was whether Article 8 of Law No. 44 of 2008 didn’t protect the rights of citizens, especially women. The Court believes that the law is an external manifestation of justice, thus justice can be reached if the state acknowledges, protects, and fulfill the citizens’ basic rights. The state’s responsibility realizes of parity and equality within Pancasila.

“With regards to pornography, the state must stand before citizens’ right to privacy to guarantee the fulfillment of basic rights. On the other hand, it must also guarantee citizens’ obligations as a logical consequence in social and state life according to morality, religious values, security, and public order regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, group, or gender,” Justice Arief said.

Also read: Feeling Victimized, Defendant of Porn Video Case Files Judicial Review of Pornography Law

He added that in order to see whether the a quo article protects citizens’ rights, especially women, the form of the norm must be observed. The Constitutional Court Decision No. 32/PUU-XVII/2019 on October 23, 2019 declared that the phrase “each person” in Article 8 of the Pornography Law was not prejudiced against gender. Justice Arief said the norm clearly stated that the provision was formulated, among others, to provide citizens, especially children and women, with legal certainty and protection against pornography. He added that this was the state’s response to the societal phenomenon that targeted women in many cases of morality. The norm aims none other than to protect all people regardless of gender.

 “Therefore, regardless of the concrete case, law enforcement officials must be more careful and cautious in implementing Article 8 of Law No. 44 of 2008 and determining the status of perpetrators or victims of pornography,” he said before the hearing led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the plenary courtroom.

Norm Implementation Issue

Justice Arief also said the implementation of the article must also be connected to other norms in the a quo law so that it was proven comprehensively that the suspect had committed the criminal act of pornography in question. He concluded that the Court believes that any norm in a law that regulates sanctions is under the purview of the legislature and that any restriction of basic rights requires representation of the people through people’s representative institutions. “Therefore, the Court believes that the Petitioner’s argument that Article 8 of Law No. 44 of 2008 doesn’t protect citizens, especially women, is legally groundless,” he said.

Also read: Petitioner of Pornography Law Strengthens Argument

At the preliminary judicial review hearing, the Petitioner’s attorney Asri Vidya Dewi revealed that due to the enactment of the a quo article, the Petitioner had been sentenced to three years in prison for becoming “an object or model” in a sexually explicit video. She reported her ex-husband for commercially distributing their record of sexual activity without her consent. She was 16 when she entered into an unregistered marriage with him, who was 14 years her senior and had sexual deviance.

Article 4 of the Pornography Law regulates privacy and prohibition of commercial reproduction and distribution of pornographic content. The Constitutional Court in its legal opinion in decision No. 48/PUU-VII/2010 also stressed the constitutionality of the phrase “for private consumption” in the Elucidation to Article 4 of the Pornography Law. She said that Article 8 of the Pornography Law then has created two subjects in a pornographic activity, i.e. the “object or model” thereof, without any affirmation on the context of commercial distribution.

The Petitioner also said the a quo article had given the state the right to infringe on personal privacy, in contrast to the Elucidation to Article 4 of the Pornography Law. In contrast, the Elucidation to Article 8 restricts the state’s involvement in personal privacy, and only talks about the motives or situations that compels someone to be an “object or model,” including for personal reasons that is one’s privacy.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Tiara Agustina

Translation uploaded on 11/27/2020 20:42 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---