Author contests AGO’s authority to ban books

An author whose book was banned by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) in December last year has requested the Constitutional Court review an article in the 2004 AGO Law that gives the institution authority to monitor and control the publication of books.   

Darmawan, the author of Enam Jalan Menuju Tuhan (Six Paths to God), filed the request last month. The first hearing commenced Tuesday.

The author argued that Article 30 (3) of the law, which stipulates that the AGO has the authority to monitor and control the circulation of printed material to maintain public order, violated his constitutional rights.

“Book banning by the AGO is definitely a repression of the freedom of speech,” said Rachmat Bagja, a lawyer for Darmawan.

Darmawan’s Enam Jalan is one of five books that were recently banned by prosecutors.

The four other books include Dalih Pembunuhan Massal Gerakan 30 September dan Kudeta Soeharto (The Sept. 30 Movement and Soeharto Coup de’tat) by Jhon Roosa, Mengungkap Misteri Keberagaman Agama (Resolving the Mystery of Religious Diversity) by Syahrudin Ahmad, Suara Gereja Bagi Umat Tertindas Penderitaan Tetesan Darah dan Cucuran Air Mata Umat Tuhan di Papua Barat Harus Diakhiri (The Voice of Churches for Suppressed People, Blood and Tears of Gods’ Congregation in West Papua) by Cocrateze Sofyan Yoman, and Lekra Tak Pernah Membakar Buku: Suara Senyap Lembar Kebudayaan Harian Rakjat 1950-1965 (Lekra Never Burns Books) by Roma Dwi Aria Yuliantri and Muhidin M. Dahlan.

The AGO claimed Darmawan’s book contained heretical teachings, which could confuse the public.
The book highlights the spiritual paths taken by saints and religious leaders: Krishna Dwipayana Wyasa, Sidharta Gautama, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad.

The prosecutors said the Sept. 30 movement book spread false information, for its version of events surrounding the alleged coup by the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in 1965.  

Darmawan argued that the implementation of the AGO’s monitoring function for printed material was “neither transparent nor accountable”.

“[The article] does not specifically regulate how the AGO can begin monitoring printed material,” he said.

Presiding judge Hamdan Zoelva said the plaintiff’s objection to the article might have related more to its implementation than its substance.

“If it relates more to the implementation [of the article], then you should go to the State Administrative Court and not the Constitutional Court,” he said.

Presiding judge Muhammad Alim gave the plaintiff 14 days to revise his request and adjourned the hearing.