P

ro-press freedom activists have lambasted contentious articles in the Criminal Code bill, saying that the proposed articles, should the bill be passed, can be used to restrict journalistic work and incriminate journalists.

The proposed articles considered an explicit threat to the press include article 329 point (d), which says that publishing or allowing the publication of anything that may influence judges’ impartiality in a court hearing is considered unlawful and subject to a maximum sentence of five years in prison or a fine.

Another controversial item in the bill is Article 285, which says that anyone who broadcasts, displays or posts writings or pictures in a public space; plays recording for the public to listen to; or distributes messages insulting the government via digital devices is subject to a maximum of three years’ imprisonment and a fine.

The bill will also reinstate an article that penalizes citizens for insulting the head of state, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court 12 years ago. Article 263 (1) stipulates that publicly insulting the President or Vice President is punishable by law and subject to a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. The second point of the article, however, asserts an exception for those committing the insult “for the sake of the truth” or in a
defensive act.

The proposed articles overlap with the 1999 Press Law, which protects the national press from censorship and banning, practices rampant during the New Order regime.

“It is the press’ duty to expose the truth; educate the public about law supremacy, human rights, diversity and the value of democracy as well as criticize the government,” Press Council chairman Yosep Adi Prasetyo said in a discussion in Jakarta on Thursday.

“It does not reflect a new [democratic] Indonesia,” he added.

Sharing the sentiment, Yadi Hendriana of the Indonesian Television Journalist Association pointed out that the bill would be a hindrance to the press.

“House members may want to protect themselves from corruption allegations”, he said, emphasizing that, “so long as the news is proportional, impartial and liable, there’s nothing wrong with [publishing it]”.

Should the House continue with the deliberation, preventive provisions will be necessary, criminal law experts warned.

Trisakti University criminal law lecturer Yenti Garnasih said an emphasis on intent should be explicitly highlighted in the discussed articles.

“Once ‘intentional’ is inserted in the beginning of the article, law enforcers will have to prove unlawful acts in the article to be intentional in the court,” she said.

Enny Nurbaningsih, the government’s Criminal Code bill deliberation team head, asserted that the articles were not aimed at incriminating the press because the team members had clearly differentiated between criticism as an expression and as an insult.  

“Insults are personal, while criticism is largely related to [the head of state’s] position,” Enny said, while acknowledging that such a subtle difference may pose a challenge to law enforcers when practicing the law.

She also added that press freedom would continue to be protected by the existing press law.

“If the bill passed, it would take three years for the new law to be fully implemented,” she said.

Meanwhile, NasDem Party politician Akbar Faisal justified the contentious articles, saying that politicians were prone to defamation and false allegations because of unverified news.

The state of press freedom in Indonesia fares relatively better compared to other Southeast Asian countries, though its overall assessment remains unimpressive. Indonesia ranked 124th out of 180 nations — the highest among 10 ASEAN member states — in the 2017 World Press Freedom index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders. Meanwhile, Freedom House put Indonesia’s freedom status under the partly free category in 2017. (sha)