Next time you feel like cursing the government over some policy that deeply hurts your interests, go ahead and do it loudly. Don't worry, the police will not come after you. So, if you find yourself having to pay exorbitant school fees for your children when the government says it's free, or having to pay much more for milk, cooking oil and other essential commodities, or are having problems getting through the bureaucracy, go and curse the government or whoever you feel responsible, including the president or vice president.
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday removed Articles 154 and 155 from the Penal Code that had, for more than a century, impeded our right to free speech. Complaining and criticizing (including cursing within reasonable limits) the government had, until recently, been one of those acts that would land you in jail. The law did not distinguish between criticizing and insulting the state, and both could (and often were) considered inciting or sowing enmity and hatred, and thus liable for criminal prosecution with a maximum penalty of seven years in jail. The law was equally applicable to expressions made verbally, or disseminated in writing or through pictures.
In other words, technically, even in this era of democracy, the government was almost beyond reproach from the very public that had voted them into office. That is no longer the case.
The ruling came when the Court ruled in favor of Panji Utomo, an activist based in Aceh, who was the last person to be convicted by a district court for violating those two articles. Panji, who was found guilty of criticizing the work of the Aceh and Nias Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency, petitioned the Constitutional Court to conduct a judicial review of the two offending articles, claiming they were impeding his right to free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Lo and behold, the Court agreed with him. At the stroke of their pens, nine judges in the panel rendered the two articles, which had been written into the law of the land by the Dutch colonialists as far back as the 19th century, unenforceable because they ran against the Constitution. And Panji as acquitted of all charges.
The ruling followed a similar decision in December that struck Articles 134, 136 and 137 out of the Penal Code. All the articles were to do with insulting the president and the vice president, then an offense punishable with up to six years in jail.
This is another milestone in Indonesia's long and slow march to democracy, one that is probably not well widely understood or appreciated, going by the lackluster public reaction to the news.
Historically, these five ""hate"" articles were introduced by Dutch colonial rulers toward the end of 19th century to stifle and silence the independence movement. But it took more than 60 years after Indonesia became independent in 1945 before the offending articles were rendered unenforceable. In the meantime, all Indonesian presidents, from Sukarno and Soeharto to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, but with the exception of B.J. Habibie and Abdurrahman Wahid, have used the articles to gag critics.
Hundreds of people have had to go to jail for criticizing the leaders of the nation or for attacking the government. But even worse was the chilling effect each of these rulings must have had on society.
But then the Constitutional Court, which gives us the instruments to test the constitutionality of laws and government regulations, was only established in 2003.
Instead of ruing the past for taking our time in removing these anti-freedom articles, we should welcome the court ruling and rejoice that this nation is marching on as far as our right to freedom of expression is concerned. We should demand that those who were convicted under these articles should be released if they are still in jail, and all those convicted are entitled to have their names and reputations reinstated by the state.
This episode should also raise questions about the commitment of the champions of democracy in securing our freedom. We are of course thankful to Panji Utomo, not exactly known for his struggle to further democracy in this country, for making it possible. But what are the regular champions of democracy, who were so vocal during the early years of reformasi, up to these days?
The removal of the five articles came by chance, that is, because of pending litigations that were referred to the Judicial Court, rather than by some concerted campaign by the pro-democracy camp. This begs the question -- aren't there many more articles in the Penal Code that should be removed because they impede our freedom and constitutional rights?
Indonesia's long and slow march to democracy is not over yet. Let's all get back to work.
