TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
The verdict and what it means for tolerance
The case of Ahok alone does not necessarily indicate that Indonesian Muslims are more intolerant.
Change Size
Supporters of Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama cry after the North Jakarta District Court sentenced him to two years in prison for blasphemy in his final hearing on May 9. (JP/Seto Wardhana.)
I
t is undeniable that the court verdict on Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama on May 9 is a stark setback for legal fairness in Indonesia. It marks a procedural setback given the mob pressure on the court.
The verdict did not follow the formal legal procedure of the Blasphemy Law, or Article 156a of the Criminal Code (KUHP), which stipulates that individuals must be given a warning letter from the Religious Affairs Ministry, the Attorney General’s Office and the Home Ministry before they are to be prosecuted, and no such letter was issued.
The verdict moreover also marks a substantive setback — not only in the way the judge interpreted the Blasphemy Law, but also by the fact that the judge applied it to begin with; knowing that it’s a law with vague wording that can easily be interpreted to suit any interest, and did so under an ultra petita principle (giving a sentence heavier than that requested) — a judicial principle commonly reserved for verdicts issued during times of crises.
As many rise in shock over the ease in which social political pressure may have pushed the judges in their recklessness, let’s examine the root cause of such willful recklessness, the Blasphemy Law itself.
