Indonesian Court rejects Blasphemy Court Case

In April 2013, the Indonesian Constitutional Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Law (although the court decision was only made publicly available in September 2013). As I argued previously, this was the most likely outcome, given the weak constitutional nature of the arguments raised and the failed challenge to the Blasphemy Law in 2010 (‘Case 1’).

The Court dismissed the case (‘Case 2’) in less than 10 pages of reasoning in the 148 page decision. The Court characterised the applicant’s case as revolving around three key arguments.

The first argument was that there is no definition of what constitutes an act of blasphemy done ‘in public’, as required by the Blasphemy Law. On this point, the Court found the phrase ‘in public’ to be sufficiently certain, because it is used in other provisions of the Criminal Code and Indonesian commentary on these provisions is well-established. This highlights that the real issue is not the formal meaning of the phrase ‘in public’, but the way it is being interpreted, or misinterpreted, by local courts in practise.

Second, the applicants argued that the definition of what constitutes ‘blasphemy’ was uncertain. Indirectly, the Court responded by asserting that the scope of the Blasphemy Law and its interpretation was the responsibility of the general courts. It emphasised that the law was needed to maintain social order (a prominent theme in the Court’s previous judgement). It further held that it did not need to address the issue of what constitutes blasphemy because ‘This issue represents a problem concerning the implementation of the law and not a constitutional problem.’

The third main argument of the applicants was that no institution has been given the authority to decide what amounts to blasphemy. From the beginning, the Court emphasised that it could not hear the legality of the conviction of the applicants for blasphemy, which is correct, but only constitutional law issues. The Court cited Case 1 in which it noted that the teachings of a religion are to be decided internally by that religion. The question of interpretation, the Court held, ‘represents a problem of practice, not a constitutional problem’. While this may be the case, its response did not clarify the question of who has the authority to determine whether an act amounts to ‘blasphemy’.

The brief response of the Court in this case therefore ceded no ground to the applicants. Further, the bench chose to repeat some of the statements the Court made in Case 1, rather than offer any new reasoning on the subject. This is despite the fact that only five out of nine judges were on the bench in Case 1 (and one of these was the judge who had dissented in Case 1).

The Court cited Case 1 for the proposition that the Blasphemy Law does not limit religious freedom, but only limits behaviour that degrades or misuses the teachings of a religion followed in Indonesia. It also cited Case 1 to emphasise that other interpretations were allowed to exist, but that a person could not intentionally degrade them in public. It further quoted the concern expressed by the Court in Case 1 that if the Blasphemy Law was abolished, there would be social conflict.

Some of the direct quotations taken from Case 1, however, do not directly correspond to the new arguments that the applicants raise in Case 2. Case 2 was clearly accepted on the basis that the applicants put new arguments to the Court, which therefore required a new response and set of reasoning from the Court. This appears to indicate that the Court relied heavily on the reasoning in Case 1 and did not feel that it could depart from it or add to it.

The Court went on to consider whether the Blasphemy Law was still needed or not, conducting a brief normative assessment rather than an inquiry into the constitutionality of the arguments made.

The Court decision suggests that the creative and strategic approach taken by the litigants in this case failed to make a difference to the ultimate outcome of the case. Yet one wonders if the outcome may have been different if Case 2 had not been brought in the shadow of Case 1.

At any rate, the Constitutional Court is now making headlines for all the wrong reasons, with the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Akil Mochtar, arrested on charges of corruption. Although it relates to a local election case, it also casts a question mark over all cases presided over or decided by Akil Mochtar,[i] including the Blasphemy Law Case 2.

This article first appeared in the International Journal of Constitutional Law Blog, 23 Oct, available here.


[i] While the Blasphemy Law Case 2 was not actually heard while Akil Mochtar presided as Chief Justice, but rather under the former Chief Justice Mahfud MD, the court decision in Case 2 is actually signed by Akil Mochtar. 


2015 (1) 2019 (1) ABF (1) Academic Association (1) access to justice (1) ACICIS (1) ADB (3) administrative courts (1) administrative law (3) Ahmadiyah (1) Ahok (5) All Indian Law Reporter (1) Allah (1) amendment (3) American Bar Foundation (1) AMSEAS (4) anthropology (1) ANU (4) army (1) article (1) ASAA (3) ASEAN 360 (1) Asia (10) Asia Research Institute (1) Asia Society (2) Asian Development Bank (1) Asian law (7) Asian Law Centre (1) Asian Studies (1) AsianLII (2) Attorney General (2) AustLII (1) Australia (11) Australia-ASEAN Summit (1) authoritarian regimes (1) authoritarianism (2) banking and finance (1) Bawaslu (2) blasphemy (8) blasphemy charges (1) Blasphemy Law (2) blogs (1) book (4) book chapter (1) book launch (4) book review (3) books (1) Buddhism (6) Buddhism and law (1) Buddhist law (1) Buffet Institute (1) Burma (58) Burmese language (1) Burmese students (1) Burmese translation (1) bursaries (1) Business (4) call for papers (1) Canada (1) capacity building (2) Cause lawyers (1) Chicago (3) china (1) Christianity (1) citizenship (1) colloquium (1) commercial law (7) common law (2) comparative constitutional law (1) comparative law (1) conference (18) conflict (3) constitution (25) constitution-building (1) constitution-making (2) constitutional amendment (2) constitutional change (1) Constitutional Court (4) constitutional law (12) constitutional legacy (1) constitutional review (1) constitutional rights (1) Constitutional Tribunal (6) Constitutional Writs (1) Constitutionalism (2) constitutions (2) corporate law (2) course (1) court reform (1) courts (14) Crisis (1) Culture (1) Dan S Lev (3) database (1) death penalty (1) death sentence (1) deference (1) delegation (1) democracy (9) denial (1) development (3) Dialogue (1) divided societies (1) Economics (3) edited book (1) election (1) elections (11) electoral disputes (1) emergency powers (5) engagement (1) ethnic recognition (1) Ethnic rights (1) fatwa (1) Federal Court of Australia (1) Forum (1) global law (1) Global Politics and Religion (1) globalisation (1) governor (1) handbook (2) Harvard Law School (1) history (1) Hong Kong (1) Hong Kong University (1) Hooker (1) human rights (5) Human Rights Commission (1) ICON (2) IGD (1) IGLP (1) Indonesia (42) Indonesia Council (1) Indonesia Ulama Council (1) Indonesian studies (1) International IDEA (1) international law (1) international students (1) Interview (5) investment (1) IS (1) Islam (19) Islam and the state (1) Islamic law (1) Islamist (2) Jakarta (10) Jokowi (1) journal (3) journal article (6) judges (3) Judicial Colloquium (1) judicial independence (4) judicial review (1) judicial selection (1) justice sector (1) Ko Ni (1) korea (1) law (24) law and society (3) Law and Society Association (1) law faculty (2) law reform (3) Law School (1) lawyer (2) lawyers (2) lecture (1) legal culture (2) legal education (5) legal pluralism (1) legal process (1) legal reforms (1) Legal Training (1) Lev (1) local governance (1) LSA (1) Mainland Southeast Asia (5) major projects (1) Malaysia (2) marriage (1) military (4) military-state (1) minorities (1) moving (1) Muslims (8) Myanmar (129) Myanmar law (1) nationalism (1) Naypyidaw (2) Nemo (1) New Constitutions (1) new year (1) newsletter (1) NLD (1) Northwestern (2) NUS (2) Oxford (1) panel (1) parliament (2) peace (1) peace process (1) people smuggling (5) Pluralism (1) podcast (1) podcasts (1) political Islam (1) political parties (1) Politics (8) politics of courts (1) PPIM (1) President (1) press freedom (1) principles (1) professional legal education (2) publication (1) radio interview (1) Rakhine State (6) rally (1) referendum (1) reform (4) religion (14) religious education (1) religious intolerance (1) report (5) reports (1) research (1) research centre (1) resources (1) Risks (1) RMIT (1) Rohingya (4) roundtable (2) rule by law (1) rule of law (4) scholars dialogue (1) scholarship (1) scholarships (1) section 144 (1) secularism (1) seminar (18) Shan State (1) Shi'a (1) Shi'ism (1) Singapore (5) social conflict (1) socio-economic rights (1) socio-legal studies (1) Southeast Asia (15) Southeast Asia; Islamic law; electives; UNSW Law; Rule of Law (1) Sri Lanka (3) State (1) statelessness (1) students (1) success (1) Supreme Court (6) Sydney (7) terrorism (1) Thailand (4) The Constitution of Myanmar (2) tolerance (1) training (2) transition (1) tribute (2) Trisakti University (1) U Ko Ni (4) UAGO (1) UIN (1) UNDP (1) UNHCR (1) University of Indonesia (3) University of Melbourne (5) University of Sydney (1) University of Yangon (1) UNSW (32) UNSW Law (3) videos (1) violence (1) West (2) West Java (1) Windsor Faculty of Law (1) women (2) Women in Asia Conference (1) working paper (1) workshop (18) world bank (1) writs (2) Yangon (3)