T

he naming of incumbent Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama as a suspect in a blasphemy case is another example of how the majority rule over the minority by exploiting the controversial blasphemy law, critics say.

Ahok, a Christian of Chinese descent in the predominantly Muslim country, has been charged under Article 156 (a) of the Criminal Code on religious blasphemy as well as Article 28 (2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law on hate speech.

The move comes following weeks of protests by some Muslims over the governor’s statement that some people had used verse Al-Maidah 51 of the Quran to convince others not to vote for him in the February gubernatorial election.

Ahok’s case presented similarities to other previous cases related to blasphemy, where the accused were part of the minority and the accusers were part of the majority, Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) researcher Wahyudi Djafar said on Wednesday.

“The pattern is always like that. No one belonging to the majority group has ever been accused [of blasphemy] and taken to court,” Wahyudi said.

In almost every case, the majority succeeded in pressuring law enforcers, including police and prosecutors, to charge and sentence alleged suspects, even if there was not clear evidence for blasphemy, he said.

“The problematic part of the blasphemy conviction is that it was influenced by the majority.”

Setara Institute data revealed that from 1965 to 1998 roughly 15 cases were deemed to be in violation of Article 156 (a) of the Criminal Code and the 1965 Blasphemy Law. The number has significantly increased since 2000 with at least 50 total cases, excluding the recent one involving Ahok.

In 2013, Bandung High Court changed Sebastian Joe’s prison sentence of 4 years to 5 years after he was reported by the Ciamis chapter of firebrand Islam Defenders Front (FPI) in West Java for his Facebook status, which they considered insulting to Islam.

In another case, in Bali, a Hindu-majority province, a woman named Rusgiani was sentenced to 14 months in prison by Denpasar District Court after allegedly insulting a Hindu offering. Rusgiani said she made the statement because she believed that God does not need offerings in Christianity.

“Law enforcement related to this law is far from credible and instead rather reckless, especially because the verifications are based on public influence politicizing blasphemy,” Ismail Hasani of Setara Institute said.

Six years ago, the Constitutional Court rejected a judicial challenge seeking to repeal the law. However, in the ruling, the court’s justices acknowledged that Article 156 (a) is problematic and should be revised. Still, neither the government nor the legislators have made significant moves at revision.

Critics have renewed calls for the government to revise the article as well as the 1965 Blasphemy law, saying that more often than not, they are used by the majority to pressurize the minority. The laws provide no legal certainty or justice for citizens, they explained.

In an event that highlighted the flaws of the blasphemy law, National Police chief Gen. Tito Karnavian explained that investigators were initially divided on whether there were any criminal elements in Ahok’s case. However, since some believed there were, they decided to bring the case to an open trial.

Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) senior adviser Choirul Anam criticized the move, saying blasphemy-related cases have always been tainted by public pressure with little regard for fair law enforcement.

“Where is fair law enforcement and equality before the law? If there is not a unanimous decision [to name Ahok a suspect], why promptly declare it as a criminal offense?” Choirul said.

The House of Representatives’ Commission III overseeing legal affairs is currently mulling over the revision of the Criminal Code, which many deemed outdated.

Hanura legislator Sarifuddin Sudding from Commission III agreed that the substances of Article 156 should be revised to reduce bias and ambiguous interpretation to better regulate which cases could be considered blasphemy.

“There should be clarity on what qualifies as blasphemy and what qualifies as hate speech,” Sarifuddin said, adding that the matter would be brought up during the revision process by the House.