Muslims observing the hearing, in which the court rejected arguments
that the law restricted freedom of religion
In a ruling that was not entirely unexpected, the Constitutional Court on Monday rejected a motion to revise or annul the 1965 Blasphemy Law, saying the request had “no legal base.”
“The postulates of the applicants, both formal and material, have no legal base,” court chief Mahfud MD said when reading out the court’s decision. “Therefore, the applicants’ demand is rejected in its entirety.”
Of the law itself, he said: “It’s not contrary to the basic articles in the Constitution, but it needs to be made clearer.”
The ruling was made by the nine-member panel of judges with one dissenting opinion and another in agreement but for different reasons.
The demand for a judicial review was filed by several human rights organizations, including Imparsial, PBHI and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, along with such high-profile figures as late former President Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid and progressive Islamic scholar Siti Musdah Mulia.
They argued that the state should not restrict people’s right to freedom of worship. They said faith was a personal choice that the state should not interfere in.
Under the Constitution, six formal religions are officially recognized and protected by the state — Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Confucianism. The law makes it illegal to “publicize, recommend or organize public support” for non-orthodox versions of those six religions, but it does not prohibit followers of minor faiths, such as Sikhs.
Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali publicly opposed the petitioners, and warned that the law was needed to maintain social harmony and prevent an explosion of “new religions.”
The law was used in 2008 to force followers of the Islamic Ahmadiyah sect to go underground and was regularly cited by minority groups as a source of discrimination and intimidation.
One witness who testified in an earlier hearing, Sardy, said he could not get a letter of reference from the police to enlist in the military because he did not believe in any of the six faiths, despite believing in God.
Another witness, Arswendo Atmowiloto, said he had been jailed for a year for quoting several important figures, including the Prophet Muhammad, in criticizing Islamic hard-liners.
Judge Muhammad Alim said the law was appropriate to help the state protect religious freedom, and also to respect other basic human rights.
“The basis for the law is to guarantee religious harmony, and protecting religious teachings from blasphemy is a right,” he said.
“Human rights aren’t without their limits.”
Judge Ahmad Fadil Sumadi said he believed the Blasphemy Law was not relevant to the issue of religious freedom.
“It’s there mainly to prevent blasphemy and anticipate acts of violence by those who believe their religion has been sullied,” he said. “The law ensures that such problems can be adequately dealt with.”
Judge Hamdan Zoelva said an article in the law stipulating a five-year prison sentence for violations was not unconstitutional.
“It’s up to legislators to define the punishment in the law,” he said, “and not up to this court to abolish the law.”
Judge Haryono concurred, while Judge Maria Farida Indrati gave the sole dissenting opinion.
The hearings on the judicial review have for the past several weeks been marked by vociferous demonstrations by hard-line Muslim groups, including the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).
