These are the reasons why Ahok's case should not be a reason to repel the Law on Blasphemy.
12 Mei 2017 13:05
by Yudha Ramon
On Tuesday, Ahok was found guilty of violating article 156a Penal Code by a panel of five judges of North Jakarta District Court.
Many people were and are still in shock to see an anti-corruption figure and a model of the ideal leader put behind bars for saying If you dont choose me (in the election) because you have been lied using Al-Maidah (verse) 51.
But I saw it coming. I always knew this case would end up with Ahok serving jail time.
The case has been very political, but Im not here for that. Im here to shed a light from a legal perpective, as many of you said that there was nothing wrong with Ahoks statement while many others insisted that Ahok offended the holy Quran.
Let's start withIndonesian Ulema Council (MUI).
MUI issued a statement that Ahoks remarkis blasphemous against Islam. This statement was the basis of polices move to name Ahok a suspect for violating Article 156 and 156a of the Penal Code.
Most witnesses brought to the trial mostly said that he is guilty, but for me, the crown witness was MUIs initial statement.
But Ahok is not the only person put on trial and found guilty of blasphemy. Ahoks case has been dragged for months with dozens of witnesses, but in previous cases, statement from MUI whether someone did a blasphemous act alone has been enough to send someone to jail.
So, seeing the precedent, it was easy to see where the judges would go with this case.
As a lawyer, my other problem is with the fact that the judges sentenced him to a harsher punishment compared to what prosecutors demanded. But then again, ultra petita, or sentencing a convict more that what the prosecutors demanded initially, is common in Indonesia, as judges have an active role to find more materials (other than what was presented during hearings) and use them to give a conviction based on what they believe.
So, Ahok is not special.
Many have experienced similar process. Many have become 'victims' of the Law on Blasphemy. The law wasnt made just for Ahok. Its been there since 1965 the infamous year when people slaughtered each other for having different ideology. President Soekarno thought that the law would be necessary to maintain the public order and the nations democracy.
And I think that Soekarnos idea is still relevant until now. We shouldn'tlet Ahoks case erase the noble intention of the such law.
Indonesia is a very diverse state, with six major religions, hundreds of tribes and ethnic groups, so it is essential to have a law to control the people, so they would behave in respect to other people with different background from them.
There are too many short-fused and hot-headed people in this country. There are too many riots and deaths caused by religious or ethnic differences.
We need this law to maintain our unity and keep the respect between citizens. We need this law to make sure we dont go offside and interfere with others faith, to make sure we live peacefully side by side.
Ahoks case is not special, and it should not be special.
If there are other people trying to insult other religion, they, too, should be prosecuted. And yes, it includes the hardline clerics, religious leaders who express their hatred toward other religions.
Ahem. And it includes Rizieq Shihab. I wont forget that he insulted Christianity by mocking the concept of Gods son and joking that if God has a son, then who helped Him giving birth?.
All should be equal on the eyes of the law, right?
Yudha Ramon is an advocate and founding partner at Suhendra, Ibrahim and Ramon Law Firm. He is currently a postgraduate student at Krisnadwipayana University.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect Brilio's.
