F

ollowing the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision to reject a controversial judicial review petition aimed at outlawing consensual premarital sex, the battle will now continue in the House of Representatives.

The House has been deliberating on a bill to revise a provision on adultery in the Criminal Code (KUHP) since June 2015.

The current KUHP outlaws extramarital relations, but the draft revised bill expands the definition of adultery by outlawing consensual sex between two unmarried people, as stipulated in Article 484. Under it, those found guilty of adultery could face up to five years’ imprisonment.

The spotlight is now shifting from the Constitutional Court to the House, which many fear will use the issue — which has not only sharply divided civil society groups and the court bench, but also the wider public — as a tool to woo support from the conservative community in the coming election season.

“The Islamic parties are particularly supportive of expanding [the article on adultery],” said Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) researcher Erasmus Napitupulu.

He added that although House discussions surrounding the article had not yet been overly political, there was a possibility that the article could be used in political maneuverings leading up to the elections in 2018 and 2019.

“In the current situation, everything is being linked to religion,” Erasmus said. “Even the MK chief justice [Arief Hidayat, who dissented against rejecting the petition] kept using the term ‘lit by divinity,’ which has no legal definition.”

The House’s working committee in charge of the KUHP revision bill last discussed Article 484 in December 2016, with three factions arguing to remove the provision outlawing premarital sex, according to a meeting document obtained by The Jakarta Post.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) faction called the article a form of excessive criminalization, arguing it would unfairly discriminate against couples who were joined in traditional marriages or through an indigenous religious ceremony.

Golkar Party and Hanura Party factions echoed these sentiments, adding that the article went too far into citizens’ personal lives.

The remaining seven factions, including three from Islamic-based parties — the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), the United Development Party (PPP) and the National Awakening Party (PKB) — as well as the National Mandate Party (PAN), which is affiliated with a Muslim organization, have so far agreed to keep the provision, which is now pending further discussion. The two other factions are the Gerindra Party and the Democratic Party.

Arsul Sani, a working committee member from the PPP, told the Post on Friday that his faction would continue to fight for the broader zina (adultery) article, despite the Constitutional Court’s rejection.

“The MK’s decision to reject the judicial review was based on the fact that the plaintiffs’ request forced the MK to be a ‘positive legislator,’” he said.

In its ruling, the court rejected the petition, which was filed by several conservative academics, but refused to have a say in broadening the definition of adultery as requested by the petitioners, suggesting that the matter was in the hands of lawmakers.

Arsul said that the PPP’s support for the wider definition was because the prevailing KUHP was based on “a Western legal culture that is different from the legal culture of Indonesia, which is a majority Muslim nation,” echoing the argument of the judicial review’s petitioners.

Nasir Djamil, a PKS working committee member, believed a revision of the article was necessary to maintain what he called “community resilience.”

The committee, according to Nasir, planned to finalize the bill by mid-January 2018.

The PPP’s Arsul denied he supported a revision of the article for political gains, saying: “This is a matter of our constituents’ religious convictions, which is part of our party platform.” (kmt)