Freedom of Expression in Indonesia: An Attempt at a Critical Appraisal from the International Human Rights Point of View

Abstract

The right to freedom of expression is intertwined with other rights and may be limited when they contradict. These problems are prone to happen especially in a heterogeneous country like Indonesia. Perhaps nowhere was this more evident than in the 2017 trial and conviction of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, commonly known by the name “Ahok”, the former governor of Jakarta. Previous studies on the practice of freedom of expression in Indonesia revealed a disparity between Indonesian values and universal freedom of expression standards. However, those distinctions are not mentioned directly, hence the purpose of this study is to fill in those gaps. The methodology used in this study is document analysis. A variety of sources were evaluated, including media coverage. The research concluded that (1) Indonesia’s government and regulatory framework is quite perplexing, fraught with both duplication and contradiction among regulations in effect, (2) Indonesian court rulings on freedom of expression cases appeared to be heavily susceptible to public pressure of the majority, and (3) The current Indonesian legal system has two strengths. First, the 1945 Constitution provides a framework within which the Indonesians people reserve to themselves certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Second, Indonesia’s ratification of the ICCPR established rights and obligations for the country to pass and/or amend existing laws to promote human rights and the betterment of domestic governance. However, these strengths are overshadowed by three factors: first, the disorganized regulatory framework; second, religious persecution under blasphemy law; and third, the judiciary’s inclination to favor a certain party. These are regarded as serious weaknesses of Indonesia’s judiciary in safeguarding freedom of expression.Due to the limitation of time and anti-pandemic restrictions on the freedom of movement, examination up to the most recent cases is difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the case laws observed in Indonesia were limited to those which led to convictions directly under the blasphemy law (Article 156a of the Indonesian Criminal Law), despite there are other Indonesian laws utilized to prosecute people under the pretext of being blasphemous. The result of this paper also hints at the practice of discrimination which could be investigated in future research. As a result, additional research in these areas is strongly advised.