Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06JAKARTA13476
2006-12-14 07:27:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Jakarta
Cable title:  

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES INSULTING THE PRESIDENT

Tags:  PHUM PREL PGOV ID 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO4805
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHJA #3476 3480727
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 140727Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2451
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY
RHHJJPI/USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
UNCLAS JAKARTA 013476 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV ID
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES INSULTING THE PRESIDENT
IS NOT A CRIME

REF: JAKARTA 12607

UNCLAS JAKARTA 013476

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV ID
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES INSULTING THE PRESIDENT
IS NOT A CRIME

REF: JAKARTA 12607


1. (U) Summary: A divided Constitutional Court on December
7 struck down three articles of the Criminal Code which made
insulting the President or Vice President a criminal act.
The instant case involved an appeal brought by two political
activists being tried for insulting President Yudhoyono
during a political rally. The five to four ruling was an
important step in expanding the right to free political
speech and brings Indonesian jurisprudence in line with
international standards. It also breathes fresh air into the
attempt by Indonesian human rights lawyers to ensure that the
planned revision of the Criminal Code will codify the Court's
ruling. While the debate will probably endure should the
government maintain such provisions in its draft Criminal
Code, the multi-year process expected to adopt the broader
legislation (reftel) will keep the current decision intact
for some time. End Summary


2. (U) On December 7, the Constitutional Court struck down
Articles 134, 136, and 137 of the Criminal Code, which made
insulting the President or Vice President a criminal act.
The articles are a colonial legacy originally intended to
protect the Dutch royal family from insult. They remained in
force after independence and permitted prison sentences of up
to six years for violations.

Law Used to Silence Opponents
--------------


3. (U) Former President Soeharto used the articles to
intimidate, silence, and punish opposition figures. Since
his departure the articles were used on several occasions.
During President Megawati's administration, two newspaper
editors were given suspended sentences after being convicted
of defaming the president. Earlier this year, Fakhrur
Rahman, an activist at the State Islamic University in
Jakarta, was sentenced to three months in prison for
insulting President Yudhoyono during a protest.


4. (U) The current case arose after two activists, Eggi
Sudjana and Pandapotan Lubis, were charged for public
comments they made about President Yudhoyono earlier this
year. During the course of their criminal trial, they filed
suit asking for a determination of the constitutionality of
the articles under which they were charged.


5. (U) A five-member majority of the Constitutional Court,
led by Chief Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie, struck down the
articles because they violated constitutionally-guaranteed
rights to free speech and to receive information. The
majority opinion also ruled that the articles were overly
vague and that they were implemented in a manner which
violates the legal principle that legislation must clearly
outline proscribed behavior. The dissent argued that
protecting the dignity of the Office of the President and
Vice President is a legitimate purpose, but admitted that the
implementation of the contested articles had been
problematic.

Decision Is a Milestone
--------------


6. (U) Noted Indonesian human rights lawyer, Todung Mulya
Lubis, (no relation to the plaintiffs) told poloff that the
Constitutional Court ruling is a milestone and brings
Indonesian law in line with international free speech
standards. When asked what impact the ruling would have on
efforts to revise the Criminal Code, Lubis stated that the
work of the team has not been made public, but that the
government team should take this decision into account when
formulating its proposal. When the proposed revised code is
put before committee, Lubis expects friendly legislators to
call him as an expert witness, allowing him to argue that
insulting the President or Vice President should not
be criminalized. Media reports state that the Chair of the
government team drafting the Criminal Code revision is on
record defending the contested articles. The Chairman of the
National Committee for Human Rights, Abdul Hakim Garuda
Nusantara, separately confirmed to us that the government
team supports criminal penalties for insulting the President
or Vice President. While the issue may yet be debated in the
context of the new draft code, the current court decision
should remain intact for some time, since the new legislation
is not expected to be adopted for several years.
PASCOE