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.
Court upholds defamation protection for some
Although defamation of the President and Vice President is no longer a crime, similar offenses against other public figures or corporate bodies are still punishable by law, the Constitutional Court said Friday
Change Size
A
lthough defamation of the President and Vice President is no longer a crime, similar offenses against other public figures or corporate bodies are still punishable by law, the Constitutional Court said Friday.
The court unanimously decided to uphold articles on defamation against public officials and members of the general public, dismissing a judicial review filed by journalist Risang Bima Wijaya and columnist Bersihar Lubis, who were jailed for insulting a chief editor and the Attorney General's Office.
The panel of judges, presided over by Harjono, said the plaintiffs' demand for a judicial review of Article 310 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 311 paragraph (1), Article 316, and Article 207 of the Criminal Code, lacked legal basis.
"One's good name, dignity and reputation are protected by the law and considered the constitutional right of individual citizens. This is guaranteed not only by the Constitution, but also by international law," the judges said.
Risang and Bersihar filed the judicial review after claiming the defamation articles went against the Constitution, which protects freedom of the press.
In 2006, the Constitutional Court scrapped articles on defamation of the President and Vice President, saying they contradicted the Constitution.
However, the judges maintained public officials needed special protection because they possessed not only personal subjectivities but also institutional objectivities.
Judge Natabaya said the judicial review filed by the petitioners concerned a general crime, which affected not only the press.
"If there is a need to create a special provision on crimes perpetrated by the press and the media, then there shall be a special formulation in the Press Law as lex specialis," he said.
The panel of judges said district court judges could not be blamed for referring to the Criminal Code rather than the Press Law in hearing cases of media workers charged with crimes, including defamation.
Press Council member Abdullah Alamudi expressed regret over the Constitutional Court's decision to retain the defamation articles, saying they would put press freedom under a serious threat.
"It is ironic to see our press threatened by articles we inherited from the Dutch colonial government," Alamudi said after the hearing.
He questioned the judges' inconsistency in addressing defamation articles.
"We can insult the President and Vice President but not other public officials," he said.
Press Council chairman Ichlasul Amal warned the court's decision was a lesson for the press to be more careful in what it reported.
"We expect all disputes with the press to be resolved under the 1999 Press Law, which includes the right to reply or correct. But unfortunately, some of these cases are being resolved under the Criminal Code," he said.
