ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I adopt the premise of a 2018 report issued by Indonesia’s Institute for an Independent Judiciary (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi Independensi Peradilan, LeIP), namely that the absence of basic competencies in areas as fundamental to the role of the judiciary as statutory interpretation and basic legal comprehension have moved law enforcement officials and judges to base their decisions to indict and convict for blasphemy on extrajudicial considerations. The report suggests that a more competent and legally literate law enforcement authority and judiciary might be better placed to ignore extrajudicial considerations and instead interpret the Blasphemy Law and 1945 Constitution in accordance with the intents of the drafters, thereby facilitating a shift from this prevailing Islamist majoritarian construction of human rights law to one that is more liberal democratic in nature.
In light of Ahok’s blasphemy conviction, and assuming the claim that improved levels of legal literacy could, in fact, effect such change, in this chapter I discuss four specific points on which I believe lawmakers, law enforcement authorities, and the judiciary require greater levels of understanding:
the extent to which extrajudicial considerations, including personal prejudices and deference to religious sentiment, inform blasphemy cases;
the role and organisational status of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI);
the legal standing (or lack thereof) of an MUI fatwa in a blasphemy case; and
an accurate interpretation of the Blasphemy Law and art 156a of the KUHP.
