T

he newly revised Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law has once again shown its draconian nature in inhibiting the right to freedom of expression after a Yogyakarta man was charged with defamation for complaining about a veterinary clinic.

Fatkhur “Fatur” Rohman posted on his Facebook page that his cat died after being treated at a local clinic, suggesting that his pet could have been a victim of malpractice.

Fatur had filed a police report for the alleged malpractice, but the police turned down his report as it was considered incomplete.

The police instead charged him with violating Article 27 (3) of the 2016 ITE Law on defamation with a maximum sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

Article 27 (3) of the law stipulates criminal punishment for anyone found guilty of transmitting electronic information or documents that intimidate or defame another party.

Fatur’s story first started when he brought his cat named Boy to NarooPet Clinic in Sleman, Yogyakarta, for a shave in August last year. He consulted the clinic employees about the condition of Boy’s eyes.

Without any diagnosis or analysis, two employees at the clinic namely, Laili Choiriyah and Sri Dewi Syamsuri, immediately took action and shaved Boy’s eyelashes, Fatur said at Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Yogyakarta) office.

“Two or three days later, Boy’s eyes became irritated. I brought him to the emergency unit at Gadjah Mada University’s (UGM) Soeparwi animal hospital,” Fatur said as quoted by kompas.com on Wednesday.

The doctors said Boy suffered from cat eye disease and should be treated with operations. However, several days later, Boy died.

Fatur was saddened when he heard that the people who had handled Boy at NarooPet Clinic were not doctors, paramedics or certified animal health workers.

In his Facebook post dated Feb. 20, Fatur uploaded a picture of Laili and Sri when they were treating Boy and said, “This is evidence that proves the people responsible for treating my cat were not veterinarians. They were only crazy people who acted clever […] Everything I had posted before was based on facts.”

“After uploading the status, people came to my apartment. There were six of them, and they forced me to follow them to the [Yogyakarta] Police office, but I refused. They asked for my ID card, which I did not provide,” Fatur said.

On Feb. 24, Sri, who owned the clinic, reported Fatur for alleged defamation.

LBH Yogyakarta advocate Ikhwan Sapta Nugraha, who assisted Fatur, slammed the draconian. Ikhwan claims Fatur should be a victim but instead has become a suspect.

“ITE Law is used to silence freedom of expression. We urge Article (3) of Law No. 11/2008 to be revoked,” Ikhwan said, adding that the LBH Yogyakarta would continue assisting Fatur on the matter.