T

he Constitutional Court (MK) has once again upheld the controversial blasphemy articles that are often used to prosecute minority groups.

On Thursday, nine justices at the court rejected a request to review Article 4 of the 1965 Blasphemy Law and Article 156a of the Criminal Code, which was filed by five plaintiffs, including Tajul Muluk, a Shia leader from Sampang, Madura, who is now serving a four-year sentence for blasphemy.

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom for minority groups in the country. Yet, under the Blasphemy Law, the state officially recognizes six faiths; Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. The same law also allows other native religions and beliefs to thrive.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs have argued that the articles were open to many interpretations, and argued Tajul'€™s case demonstrated how the law had been abused.

Tajul was accused of telling his followers that the Koran was not the original scripture and the true version of the Holy Book would be revealed only to the last prophet (Imam Mahdi).

Another plaintiff in the case is Sebastian Joe, who is currently serving a five-year jail sentence for committing blasphemy after the Ciamis chapter of hard-line organization Islam Defenders Front (FPI) in West Java reported him last year for his Facebook status, which they considered insulting to Islam.

Concerned that they too could also be charged with blasphemy, three teachers and Islamic preachers were also among the plaintiffs.

The panel of justices concluded the request had no legal basis as it was '€œnot a matter of constitutionality, but a matter of how to apply the law that was under the absolute authority of the general courts'€.

The MK'€™s conclusion was consistent with the government'€™s statement delivered for the hearing. In its written statement, the government told the panel that the plaintiffs should instead find other legal avenues, including a pretrial motion, appeals and a case review.

The panel rejected the plaintiffs'€™ notion that the articles in question failed to ensure legal certainty, with vague terms like '€œin public'€, '€œhostility'€, '€œmisuse'€ and '€œdesecration'€.

'€œArticle 156a is aimed at maintaining public order and preventing hate speech,'€ justice Patrialis Akbar said. '€œTherefore, to determine [whether] someone [delivers hate speech] is the authority of the general courts'€™ judges who sentence someone according to the characteristics of each case.'€

The panel later cited its 2010 ruling upholding the Blasphemy Law, which had called for its revision.

The MK concluded that the law required an amendment, yet must be maintained to keep public order.

The Court added the law did not limit religious freedom, but only restricted actions and expressions of hatred and desecration, as well as different interpretations of religions teachings in the country.

In 2010, one justice, Maria Farida Indrati, dissented, saying the law was out of date and could not keep up with the amendments of the Constitution, particularly those articles related to human rights.