Today, Sept. 23, marks the 12th anniversary of Indonesia’s Press Law.
Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie signed it into law, perhaps one of the last judicious acts in his short-lived 17-month presidency.
Its purpose was to provide a legal framework for a free press after the end of the 32-year authoritarian rule of president Soeharto when the nation’s press was anything but free. The 1999 law replaced Soeharto’s repressive 1982 Press Law.
The 1999 Press Law effectively removed the tools of government control. The 21-article law denies the government the power to license, regulate, censor or ban the press. Further, the law mandated the establishment of a completely new, independent Press Council to uphold press freedom and enhance the national press. Twelve years on, how well has the 1999 law served press freedom? Has press freedom become a boon or
a bane?
As early as two years after it came into force, legislators called for revisions in the law. On Dec. 6, 2001, in a working meeting with then Communications and Information minister Syamsul Muarif, members of the House of Representatives’ Commission I that deals with the information sector, voiced a desire to amend the 1999 Press Law. Aisyah Aminy of the United Development Party (PPP) faction raised that call based on the perception that the Press Law had failed to anticipate “negative excesses of press freedom”.
These excesses included pornography and the dissemination of untruthful, provocative and character-assassination prone news stories. The law also failed to account for the emergence of wartawan gadungan (bogus journalists), it was alleged. Aminy was a member of the same House commission in 1999 that drafted the
Press Law.
Muarif, a member of the Soeharto-affiliated Golkar Party, told Commission I that his ministry has listed 37 articles in the Criminal Code that could be grafted onto the Press Law. The articles relate to defamation, pornography and to sowing hatred against the government, to name just three.
In rebuttal, Solahudin, the then secretary-general of the Independent Journalists Alliance (AJI), wrote in Kompas on Jan. 4, 2002. Grafting those criminal code articles into the Press Law would endanger press freedom as it could lead to government intervention or banning the press, Solahuddin argued.
Penal provisions are found in Article 18 of the Press Law. Clause (1) states that anyone who obstructs press freedom is liable to a two-year stay in prison or a maximum fine of Rp 100 million (US$12,000).
Meanwhile, the second clause deals with inappropriate reporting. Clause (2) states that reporting
that does not respect religious norms, social morality and the presumption of innocence principle is liable to a maximum fine of Rp 500 million.
No tangible move to amend the Press Law has materialized since then. The threat to press freedom, however, is still real. Indonesia’s press today no longer suffers from state-driven suppression.
The peril comes from elements in society, individuals and groups, who take offense at perceived false and unfavorable reporting about themselves. They react unilaterally with psychological and physical
intimidation of journalists and media offices.
However, sensible members of the public have brought press complaints to the Press Council for mediation and to court for legal resolution. The the Jakarta-based Legal Aid Center for the Press (LBH Press), has recorded 22 criminal and 44 civil suits of press-related cases in Indonesian courts since 2003 when the center was established. Rulings have been made on 70 percent of the cases. Of those decisions, 80 percent favor the press, including cases that went to the Supreme Court, according to LBH Pers executive director Hendrayana.
In many of the cases, however, the prosecutor or complainant does not use the Press Law, specifically Article 18. State prosecutors apparently still have a criminal case mindset and are more adept in applying the penal code given that it has provisions on defamation and pornography.
A landmark case in 2003 put the Press Law in focus. Tommy Winata, owner of the Artha Graha Goup of businesses, sued Tempo for defamation. In a story on the Tanah Abang market complex in Jakarta after a major fire gutted it, the Jakarta weekly newsmagazine tied the Pontianak-born tycoon to the fire and a proposal for its rebuilding. A criminal case and a civil suit went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court used the Press Law and ruled in 2005 in both cases in favor of Tempo.
“This case is important and can serve as jurisprudence for lower court judges. The Supreme Court stated that judges should give priority use of the Press Law before applying other legal instruments like the criminal and civil codes,” Hendrayana said.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court that ruled on the Tempo case was Bagir Manan, an avowed press freedom defender who is now chair of the independent Press Council after retiring from the bench.
Should the 1999 Press Law be amended? A provision on legal procedure could be drafted into law. It should require that press complaints refer first to the Press Council for mediation. Yes, the Press Law should be amended to advance press freedom, not to suppress it, Hendrayana said.
But perceptions can be amended too. As the Supreme Court ruling pointed out in the Tempo case, the Press Law is applicable, particularly Article 18, to address the grievances of people with complaints about the press.
Although no changes in the Press Law are forthcoming, legal threats to press freedom are possible from a battery of laws that contain provisions that limit expression and information access. These include laws on information and electronic transaction, pornography, presidential elections and the still-pending state secrets bill.
The Press Law is not an ironclad guarantee of press freedom. Outside the courtroom, pressure and intimidation prevails. Inside the courtroom, press freedom can encounter laws that can subdue it.
The writer teaches journalism at Dr. Soetomo Press Institute (LPDS) in Jakarta.
