Petitioner Rega Felix conveying the petition revisions at the panel preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of the provisions on blasphemy, Wednesday (8/23/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A material judicial review hearing of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) and Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, August 23, 2023. The preliminary hearing was for case No. 79/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Rega Felix, an advocate and non-civil servant (non-PNS) lecturer.

From one of the Court’s panel courtrooms, the Petitioner conveyed the revisions to the petition following the panel’s advice at the previous hearing. He had added Article 6 letter b and the Elucidation to Article 18 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education, which also contain the phrase “religious values” as mentioned in Article 8 paragraph (2) and the Elucidation to Article 3 letter g.

“Then in the section on the Court’s authority, [I] also explain that [I] have limited the object of the norm being challenged to the articles in the body and the elucidation to the phrase ‘religious values,’ which are actually spread in the ‘considering’ section in the articles of general provisions and elucidation to the articles. However, [I] did not challenge the ‘considering’ part or the general provisions because these parts are the philosophical, juridical foundation of the law, which generally contains the mandate of the Constitution,” the Petitioner said.

In the reason of the petition, the Petitioner had also added—in points 31 to 34—the difference between his petition and the previous ones, specifically that ruled in Decision No. 140/PUU-VII/2009. The previous petition requests that the norm on blasphemy be annulled. Meanwhile, in his petition, the Petitioner does not wish for that.

Also read: Petitioner Alleges Academic Freedom under Threat of Blasphemy Law

The Petitioner challenges the Elucidation to Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law, Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law, and the Elucidation to Article 3 letter g of the Higher Education Law.

Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law reads, “The development of Science and Technology as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be done by the Academia through learning and/or scientific research by upholding religious values and national unity for the advancement of human civilization and welfare.”

Meanwhile, the Elucidation to Article 3 letter g of the Higher Education Law reads, “The principle of ‘responsibility’ refers to the Academia that implements Tridharma and realizes academic freedom, freedom of academic expression, and/or scientific autonomy, by upholding religious values and national unity and statutory laws and regulations.”

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, the Petitioner asserted that the right to freedom of thought and conscience and to express thoughts, attitudes, and opinions for the advancement of human civilization and welfare through educational institutions and science without any fear is a constitutional right for academics, as protected by Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28E paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“The Petitioner was hired as a lecturer at a university so he became part of academia. As an academic, of course, his main activity is teaching and educating in public. As a lecturer, he is vulnerable to the threat of criminal [charge] of blasphemy, as referred to in Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law or Article 156A of the Criminal Code,” he explained before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

The Elucidation to Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law states that any elaboration of a certain religion, when done objectively and scientifically and without any hateful or insulting wording, does not constitute a criminal offense. The Petitioner believes it half-heartedly tries to protect academics because it separates the definitions of “objective” and “scientific” through words or arrangement of words. “So there is a fear of developing science because trivial (mistakes) can be reported criminally due to the unclear interpretation of the a quo article,” he said.

In addition, if Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law is associated with the principle of responsibility in Article 3 letter g of the Higher Education Law and the principle of criminal liability as referred to in Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law, state powers have exercised control over science. If the state really wants to ensure academic freedom that is free from politics, the meaning of Article 31 paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution should be: “The state shall encourage the advancement of science and technology and uphold religious values and national unity for the advancement of civilization and the welfare of humankind.”

Therefore, in his petition, the Petitioner asked the Court to declare the phrase “with an effort to avoid words or phrases that are hostile or insulting,” in the Elucidation to Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

He also requested that the Court declare the phrase “upholding religious values” in Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as “without the threat and criminal liability for the Academia to dissent from the general view of religious beliefs adopted by the community” and declare the phrase “the principle of responsibility” in the Elucidation to Article 3 letter g of the Higher Education Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “without the threat and criminal liability for the Academia to differ with the general view of religious beliefs adopted by the community.” 1 paragraf aja karena “and” tidak untuk dipisah

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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

---