alternative report on forb-upr 2012
DESCRIPTION
Indonesian Civil society alternative report to the UN human Rights Council on the implementation of freedom of religion or belief in IndonesiaTRANSCRIPT
ALTERNATIVE REPORT
OF THE 2008 UPR RECOMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION FOR
INDONESIA AS A STATE CONCERNED
Concerning On Freedom of Religion and Beliefs Issue in Indonesia
Submitted in 1st Session of 2nd Cycle of the
HRC’s UPR Review in 2012
Prepared by;
HRWG Indonesia's NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy
Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy
Jakarta Legal Aid Institute
Setara Insitute The Indonesia Legal Resource Center
Wahid Institute
in collaboration with;
Center for Marginalized Communities Studies (CMARs).
November 2011
An overview;
Human Rights Working Group (HRWG)The Indonesia's NGO Coalition for International Human
Rights Advocacy (HRWG) was established in 2003 by a the majority of NGOs working in different
issues to elaborate advocacy works already in place with the aim of maximizing the goals and putting
more pressures on the Indonesian government to execute its international and constitutional
obligations of human rights in the country.
ELSAM (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy), was establishes in 1983 in the spirit of
encouraging the development of a democratic political order, by means of strengthening civil society
through advocacy and promotion of human rights in Indonesia. ELSAM's mission is to promote the
existence of a society that respects the values of human rights and democracy and attains social
justice as well as gender sensitivity.
LBH Jakarta (Jakarta Legal Aid Institute), was established of the idea addressed on the Indonesian
Bar Association (PERADIN) 3rd congress in 1969. It was aimed to provide legal aid for the poor in
defending their rights especially the poor which are victim of force eviction, marginalization, lay off
and human rights violation in general. The decision on the establishment of The Jakarta Legal Aid
Institute and The Public Defender Institute that came into force in October 28, 1970.
SETARA INSITUTE, was founded by those persons who care about elimination or decreasing of
discrimination and intolerability based on religion, ethnic, race, skin color, gender, and other social
strata as well as increasing solidarity to those who are weak and detriment. SETARA INSTITUTE for
Democracy and Peace takes part in urging an open political condition based on the respect on
diversity, defending of human rights, elimination intolerability and xenophobia.
Indonesia Legal Resource Center (ILRC), The founding of ILRC was part of our concern on legal
education that is not responsive to social justice problems. The legal education in the university
tends to make students be profit lawyers and ignoring the social justice problems. Although they
have the instruments (institutions) to provide pro bono for poor people, but they exercise it for
different purpose.
The Wahid Institute, is committed to the exchange and dissemination of progressive Muslims
thought to promote tolerance and understanding in the world. In particular, the institute is
committed to developing a dialogue between the highest spiritual and political leaders in the West
and Muslim world.
Center for Marginalized Communities Studies (CMARs), was established in 2004 from the study
forum which involve academics, activists, and the Islamic religious figures whom are concerned
about the living of socio-politics-culture in Indonesia after Reformation was decorated which further
strengthening the alienation of marginal communities such as; attack against the minority based on
religion/faith, marginalization of indigenous people, criminalization of women’s body, denial of the
existence of LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual, Transgender, Interseks, and Queer) community.
REPORT FOR THE CONDITION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND
BELIEF STATUS IN INDONESIA
PREFACE
1. This report is prepared by a number of CSOs concentrated on issues of freedom of
religion and belief in Indonesia, i.e.: Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), LBH
Jakarta (Jakarta Legal Aid Institute), The Wahid Institute, The Indonesia Legal Resource
Center (ILRC), Setara Institute, ELSAM, and Center for Marginalized Communities
Studies (CMARs).
2. This report was also disseminated in a National Workshop on November 11th
, 2011 to
pull together outlook and input from CSOs.
3. This report is arranged based on 2008 UPR Working Group to continuously provide
protection for the entire components of Indonesian society. (Recommendation, paragraph
77.5), particularly concerning threats and violence against Ahmadiyya Congregation
(Jemaah Ahmadiyah) in Indonesia, as well as the development of freedom of religion and
belief status in Indonesia, as asserted in the recommendation, paragraph 78.
A. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. The right of freedom of religion/belief possesses strong juridical footing. Indonesia has
laws and regulations as the foundation for recognition, protection, respect and promotion
of Human Rights, including within it the right of freedom of religion and belief.
Nevertheless, there are many national legislation products threatening freedom of religion
and belief.
Regulations that Guarantee Freedom of Religion and Belief
2. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 29 line (2) declares: “The state
guarantees each and every citizen the freedom of religion and of worship in accordance
with his religion and belief”. Article 28E Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,
acknowledges every person’s freedom to hold religion and practice the religion of his
choice, to choose education and schooling, and has the right to be free in his convictions,
assert his thoughts and tenets, in accordance with his conscience. The Constitution
incorporates the freedom of religion/belief as “Human Rights that cannot be derogated in
any circumstances (non-derogable rights)”.1
3. In the Legislation No. 39/1999 concerning Human Rights says that freedom of
religion/belief is a part of Human Rights and cannot be derogated (Article 4 Human
Rights Law) Article 22 of Human Rights Law guarantees freedom of religion, that: (1)
Everyone has the right to freedom to choose his religion and to worship according to the
teachings of his religion and beliefs; (2) The state guarantees everyone the freedom to
choose and practice his religion and to worship according to his religion and beliefs.
Followed by Article 55 of the Law guarantees child’s right to hold his religion: “Every
child has the right to practice his religion, and to think and express himself as befits his
intellectual capacity and age under the guidance of a parent or guardian”.
4. In the Legislation No. 23/2003 concerning Child Protection also regulates on right of
freedom of religion and belief professed by each child. Every child has the right to
practice his religion according his religion under the guidance of parent and the
State/Government has obligation and is responsible for respecting and guaranteeing every
child’s rights without any background discrimination (Article 6 and 21). The Act also
guarantees the protection to practice religion according to the child’s religion, including
protection for child who cannot yet decide his choice,2 as well as in organizing child
nursing and care, the Government is obligated to strive for and facilitate children so as to
children can be free to express their opinion and to think according to their conscience
and religion.3 The Child Protection Act also acknowledges special protection for child of
minority and isolated groups, by providing facilities and infrastructures to profess and
practice his own religion and everyone is prohibited from preventing child from
professing and practicing his religion.4
5. Specifically some articles in Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) imply the existence of
protection for freedom of religion or belief, one other thing is Article 156 jo 157
concerning spreading of hatred against a group of population (based on race group,
native country, religion, place of origin, descent, and nationality or position according to
state administration) and Article 176 on preventing a religious meeting/activity.
6. Law No. 20/2003 concerning National Education System in Article 12, line (1), letter a
guarantees every child to obtain education in accordance with his religion. This article
stipulates: “Every schooling participant has the right to obtain religious education in
accordance with the religion he profess and to be taught by teacher of the same religion as
his”.
Regulation that Curbing and Threatening Freedom of Religion/Belief
7. Law No.1/PNPS/1965 concerning Prevention of Mistreatment and/or Blasphemy of
Religion is frequently utilized by the Government to restrain the right of freedom of
religion and belief. Article 1 of Law No.1/PNPS/1965 prohibits every person to tell
interpretation or to conduct activity that deviated from the main teachings of the 6 (six)
official religions. While Article 2 provides authority for the Minister of Religion, Home
Minister, and Attorney-General to give warning to someone in order to stop outlawed
activity in keeping with Article 1 and for the President to close down organization or sect
of belief who violates the stipulation of Article 1. The perpetrator who violates Article 1
above is threatened with 5 years of imprisonment for the utmost sanction.5
8. Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 happens to be the basic existence of Article 156a of Indonesian
Penal Code (KUHP) concerning the prohibition of “deviated” interpretation on certain
acknowledged religion in Indonesia. Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) is
also utilized as a clause in criminalizing minority groups of religion/belief with excuse of
defamation of authorized religions.6
9. Law No. Number 23 of 2006 concerning Population Administration (Article 8(2), 61(4),
and 64(2)) also emphasizes the acknowledgement of 6 official religions in Indonesia as
the identities of citizens, accordingly it discriminates personal identity of other religion/
belief/faith groups.7
10. Several other regulations and policies that threaten freedom of religion and belief among
other thing is 3 Ministries Joint Decree in 2008, which in essence it prohibits activity and
dissemination of Ahmadiyya Congregation in Indonesia. Local Government Regulations
and Decrees (in levels of Provinces and Regencies/Cities) that forbid activity and
dissemination of Ahmadiyya, as well as policies that in principle have violated the
standard of national and international Human Rights, such as the Decree concerning
annulment of permit and prohibition of constructing worship house. (Annex 1)
11. From a number of legislations above, in practice:
a. The State/the Government are still inclined to employ articles that violate freedom of
religion, instead of employing regulations that guarantee freedom of religion. In the
same way that the legislation of prohibiting hate speech, which is regulated in Article
156 jo 157 of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), has never been implemented in taking
action against the perpetrators, in some cases the Government is actively involved in
perpetrating hate speech.8
b. The Government continually exploits Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 in addressing difference
of opinions in religion/belief; therefore the policies taken are the banning, curbing,
and even criminalizing it, instead of using articles that provide protection and
guarantee for freedom of religion. As example in this case are the Government’s
position against Ahmadiyya and other groups.
c. Until now there are still occur discriminative policies against minority
religion/belief/faith groups in Population Administration. The policy is derived from
Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 and Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration, thus the
right of religion/belief of certain beliefs is not acknowledged. As example, the case of
ID card making that instigates many other rights to be overlooked because they have
been obstructed by ID card (administration) prerequisite.
d. The organizing of education based on Legislation concerning National Education
System that guarantees each of schooling participants to obtain religious education in
accordance with his religion, however in reality it is not applied for other minority
faith and religion/belief groups, moreover in providing teacher compliant with his
religion.
Recommendation
12. First, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement the Constitution that guarantees
freedom of religion and belief in Indonesia maximally, specifically Article 28E and 29
(2) of the Constitution, as well as several Laws that also give such guarantee, for instance
the Human Rights Law. Second, urging the Government to revise legislation and policy
that threaten freedom of religion and belief, such as Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 and Law No.
23/2006 (Population Administration). Specifically, concerning revision to Law No.
1/PNPS/1965 as in Constitutional Court’s Decree No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 of 2010. Third,
urging the Government to abolish Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), 3
Ministries Joint Decree concerning Ahmadiyya and Local Government regulations that
threaten freedom of religion and belief. Fourth, implementing religious education
according to the teachings of each person’s religion and belief as in Article 12 (1) of
National Education System Law, including within it providing teacher in reference to
each religion/belief.
B. SERIOUS ISSUES AND THEMES OF IMPLEMENTATION AND CASES OF
THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN INDONESIA
DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
13. In Indonesia, every person who commit practice and interpretation of religion outside the
majority mainstreams is considered as perpetrating blasphemy and committing
defamation of religion, based on Law No.1/PNPS/1965, and criminalized based on
Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP).
14. Based on Law No. 1/PNPS/1965, the authorization to monitor, consider, and prohibit
religious practices and interpretations outside the majority mainstream is performed by
Attorney General. Subsequently, Attorney General assembles Monitoring of Spiritual
Beliefs in Society Task Force (Bakor Pakem) based on Decree No. KEP-004/J.A./01/1994
which in national level, its members are comprised from Home Ministry, Ministry of
Education and Culture, Attorney General Office, Ministry of Religion, Ministry of
Justice, National Army Headquarter (TNI), National Intelligence Agency (BIN), and
National Police Headquarter.
15. There are several characters of practice occurred in defamation of religion. First, the
State intervened freedom of religion and belief that contradicts with the Constitution and
Human Rights principles. Second, in various cases, the action taken by the Government
was an abuse of power, because often it was based on request of certain vigilante groups
without specific measurement and not fulfilling legal procedure. Third, in practice, the
Government’s action was based on political interests at national and regional levels.
16. In addition, the existence of ‘deviant’ fatwa issued by Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI)
arbitrarily constituted a legal basis for the Governments (national and local) to
criminalize minority groups in the name of religious defamation. In addition to that,
fatwa MUI was used as a reason for radical Islamic groups to perpetrate various violent
acts against minority groups.
17. Several examples of criminalization cases of religious defamation derived from Law No.
1/PNPS/1965 Jo. Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), among other things
are the Verdict of High Court of Padang concerning Qiyadah Islamiyah followers (2008),
prohibition of Gernard Meliala in North Sumatra (January 2009), Drs FX Marjana
(2009),9 arrest of the Leader of Nabi Akhir Jaman (End of Time Prophet) cult - Danan
Aritonang in Medan (January 2011), arrest of Satria Piningit sect in Jakarta (January
2009), arrest of the Leader of Praying Group of Sion Kota Allah and 9 of his followers
(May 2009) and the closing down of Tarikot Qodariyah Naqsabandiyah cult in
Pandeglang, Banten by MUI and Bakorpakem, and case of Richmond Bawengan
(February 2011). In addition to those cases above, there are statements, encouragement
and pressures from Local Government and Regional MUI to Bakorpakem to disperse or
punish the cults which were considered as deviant and disturbing the public. 10
Judicial Review/Effort conducted by Civil Society
18. In 2010 Constitutional Court decided that Law No.1/PNPS/1965 to be revised in order to
guarantee further the freedom of religion and belief. This Constitutional Court’s decision
was based on judicial review proposed by civil society11
19. Until now, the decision of Constitutional Court has never been executed effectively by
the Government, and in practice the Law No.1/PNPS/1965 is still applied.
Recommendations
20. Recommendations; First, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement the decision
of Constitutional Court to revise the Law No. 1/PNPS/1965, and to declare the law
inapplicable. Second, urging the Government of Indonesia to disperse the Monitoring of
Spiritual Beliefs in Society Task Force (Bakor Pakem), because it contradicts with the
Constitution, Human Rights principles, and in practice become the only institution
perpetrating the expropriation of freedom of religion and belief in Indonesia. Third,
urging the Government of Indonesia to abolish MUI ‘deviant” fatwas, because they are
contradict with the Constitution, and enforcing the law if the fatwa is proved to have
raised various violent acts against minority groups.
DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLENCE AGAINST AHMADIYYA
21. One of significant issues and that it dominated religion/belief-based violence between
2008 -2011 is violence case against Ahmadiyya Congregation.12
22. The escalation of violence and violation against this group increased since the release of
MUI fatwa in 1980, and Fatwa MUI of 2005 declaring that Ahmadiyya is deviant and
strayed and subsequently asking the Government to outlaw the dissemination of
Ahmadiyya in Indonesia and to freeze down the organization and its places of activity .13
23. Later in 2008, Home Minister, Minister of Religion, and Attorney-General issued Joint
Decree (SKB) which contained limitation of worship activity and dissemination of
Ahmadiyya Congregation in Indonesia.14
This SKB triggered the occurrence of various
regional regulations (in Province and Regency/City levels) that forbid activity and
dissemination of Ahmadiyya.15
(Annex 2).
24. 3 Ministries Joint Decree also triggered the increase of violence against Ahmadiyya
Congregation perpetrated by vigilante groups (Islamic-radical). The data compiled by
Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation and HRWG since 2008-2010 records 77 cases of violence.
25. Based on Setara Institute’s monitoring result, there are 271 types of breach that have been
perpetrated against Ahmadiyya Congregation communities in period of 2008-2010, such
as murder, eviction, expropriation of property, outlawing worship, sealing of mosques. 16
Example of Violence Practice against Ahmadiyya
26. Common character of breach against freedom of religion;
Violation against freedom of religion and belief against Ahmadiyya was perpetrated
systematically in the form of persecution. The variety of persecution among other things
is;
a. The existence of attack and violence, whether verbal violence, including: harassment
against Ahmadiyya women, hate speech, intimidation; and physical violence, such as
the difficulties in order to obtain civil registration service, destruction over property,
closing down of mosque, burning down, forced eviction, and murder. Those violent
acts are not only happened in one region, but almost in every region in Indonesia.
b. The existence of State Policies that discriminate and legitimize it in the form of
regulations and policies at national and regional levels.
27. Several cases of violence and attack against Ahmadiyya’s residence and area up to 2011
are:
a. In Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, in 2001 there was an attack against Ahmadiyya
quarters and caused 379 people of Ahmadiyya Congregation to be forcefully driven
out toward the former Praya Hospital and Wisma Transito Mataram, which until now
there are still approximately 157 people of Ahmadiyya Congregation who still
inhabit the refuge.
b. In 2005, annual meeting (Jalsah Salanah) which was organized in JAI Headquarter of
Parung, Bogor was forcefully dispersed by Islamic radical group, the Police and
Municipality Police Unit. Until now, JAI office is still in sealed off condition.
c. On February 6th
, 2011 JAI community in Cikeusik-Banten was attack and some were
brutally killed. They were brutally abused, which caused 3 people killed, 16 others
injured, 1 house destroyed and 2 cars were burnt.
28. Moreover, attack and closing down of worship house were also imposed over
Ahmadiyya Congregation Indonesia, whether by the Government or Vigilante groups.
From 2008 to 2011, there are several cases of attack and closing down of JAI worship
house, i.e. in Cisalada-Bogor, Sukapura-Tasikmalaya, Kuningan Regency, Depok, and
Ciamis – All in West Java Province, and in Makassar- South Sulawesi.
a. Monday, July 12th
2010, the construction to widen JAI mosque in Cisalada, Ciampea
Udik, Ciampea, Bogor was ceased by Municipality Police Unit by cutting the metal
shafts to be use as foundation of the mosque.17
The demolition was lead by Head of
Ciampea Sub-district along with 24 members of Municipality Police Unit and helped
by police officers from District Police Station (Polsek) and Sub-Precinct Police
Station (Polres) of Bogor amounting to 300 personals.18
Later on July 12th
, 2010,
thousands of Cisalada population surrounded the JAI location in Cisalada, Ciampea
Udik village, Ciampea Sub-district, Regency of Bogor. They demanded to have the
worship house, school and foundation of the mosque demolished.19
b. January 10th
, 2008 FPI mass perpetrated destruction over Baitul Rahim mosque,
Cipakat Cipasung Singaparna, Tasikmalaya Regency. One year previously, JAI
Mosque of Sukapura Tasikmalaya was also demolished.20
c. July 29th
, 2010 a JAI mosque (An-Nur) and 6 mushala were sealed off in Kuningan.
On July 8th
, 2010 Regent of Kuningan has delivered the plan of sealing off
Ahmadiyya Congregation’s mosque and mushala, by reasoning of protecting
conducive situation and in order to avoid Human Rights violation for the second time,
and anchored in the recommendation of Indonesia Ulema Council number 38/MUI-
Kab/VI/ 2010 (June 24th
, 2010). Equipped with Regent’s Instruction No. 451.2/2065/
SAT POL PP dated on July 23rd
, on July 26th
, 2010 and July 28th
, 2010 the
Municipality Police Unit members executed the sealing.21
d. October 29th
, 2010, Regent of Ciamis-West Java, Engkon Komara and Council for
Provincial and Lower Level Government Officials (Muspida) elements, committed a
deal with FPI Ciamis to outlaw Ahmadiyya residents to conduct religious activities in
Ahmadiyya mosque on Jalan Cipto Mangunkusumo Dusun Pakuncen Village/Sub-
district of Ciamis. This deal was adopted after FPI had wanted to seal off Ahmadiyya
mosque for the reason that it was considered as violating 3 Ministries Joint Decree of
2008.22
e. In Depok-West Java, forceful sealing off and closing down were also happened in
March 2011. The mosque until now cannot be used anymore because the
congregation was threatened to be other victim such as what has happened in
Cikeusik by the group (Vigilante) who perpetrated the forceful closure.
f. In East Indonesia (Makassar), forceful closure of mosque in Makassar was directly
led by Chief of Provincial Police of Makassar, although there has never been any
instruction from court order to execute the closure.23
29. Various violence cases occur have received attention from international communities
through various UN mechanisms particularly the Special Procedure and attention from
various fellow countries. However, practices of violence are still happened and there has
not been any effective and significant measure to protect Ahmadiyya Congregation and to
take firm action to punish the violence perpetrator.
Recommendation
30. First, Urging the Government of Indonesia to guarantee and protect Ahmadiyya
Congregation from all forms of violence act. Second, urging the Government of
Indonesia to eradicate regulation or policy that cause violence habit against Ahmadiyya
Congregation (Law No.1/PNPS/1965, 3 Ministries Joint Decree, and various regional
regulations). Third, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement effective legal
process against violence perpetrators. Fourth, urging the Government of Indonesia to
grant effective remedy in all aspects of life for Ahmadiyya Congregation including their
properties (worship houses, homes, etc). Fifth, urging international community to
conduct monitoring and expect the Government of Indonesia to respect and guarantee the
rights of Ahmadiyya Congregation Indonesia.
ABUSE OF POWER TOWARD INDONESIA CHRISTIAN CHURCH (GKI) TAMAN
YASMIN BOGOR
31. Congregation of GKI Yasmin has obtained Construction Permit (Church) from the
Mayor of Bogor - Diani Budiarto - in 2006; however, in 2008 the construction permit
(IMB) was frozen. Due to the permit freezing, GKI Yasmin congregation could not
practice worship in their church.
32. Then GKI Yasmin Congregation fought through legal channel. The fight was won by
GKI Yasmin party, both at the High Administrative Court and Supreme Court levels.24
Nevertheless, the Government of Bogor continues to ban GKI Yasmin to practice
worship in their church.
33. On the incidents of defiance committed by Government of Bogor City, GKI Yasmin
Congregation has reported to Commission III of the House of Representatives of the
Republic of Indonesia, the Ombudsman, and National Commission on Human Rights.
Ombudsman has twice sent letters to the Mayor of Bogor in 2010 that questioned the
implementation of the High Administrative Court Bandung’s decision. Due to the
noncompliance of Government of Bogor City, on July 8th
, 2011 the Ombudsman
recommended Mayor of Bogor to annul the Decree concerning the Construction Permit
withdrawal, require him to execute the recommendation, and for the Home Minister to
apply monitoring over the implementation of the recommendation, with carbon copy to
the President and House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia.
34. In the series of legal process mentioned above, Mayor of Bogor, Home Minister,
President and House of Representatives did not conduct any concrete measures toward
the implementation of the court verdict and recommendation from various state
institutions. Even, the Mayor of Bogor committed provocative acts and gave “facility”
for vigilante groups (hard-line Islamic groups).
35. As the result of the Mayor’s acts, GKI Yasmin congregation received terror,
intimidation, hatred incitement from vigilante groups that still continue. It has been run
since April 2010 to November 19th
, 2011, which caused GKI Yasmin congregation have
to practice worship on the sidewalk of the church, that legally owned by them. And it has
been recorded that they have practiced worships for 65 times from April 11, 2010 until
November 13, 2011.
36. GKI Yasmin case also receives attention from the UN mechanisms especially the Special
Procedure and attention from many fellow countries. In spite of this, there has not been
any concrete action taken by the Government of Indonesia even particularly in the
practice of Government of Bogor in ‘facilitating’ violence.
Recommendations
37. First, urging the Government, specifically the President of the Republic of Indonesia,
Home Minister and Mayor of Bogor to obey the final verdict of Supreme Court and
implement the recommendation from Ombudsman and National Commission on Human
Rights. Second, urging the Government to take legal and administrative measures upon
Mayor of Bogor. Third, urging international community to conduct monitoring and
expect the Government Indonesia to respect and guarantee the rights of GKI Yasmin
congregation.
THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT HOUSE OF WORSHIP
The Policy of Constructing Worship House in Indonesia
38. The policy concerning worship house is regulated in the Joint Decree of Minister of
Religion and Home Minister (2 Ministries Joint Decree).25
There are requirements that
have been established in the 2 Ministries Joint Decree relating to the construction of
worship house, i.e.: fulfilling administrative requirements and technical requirements of
building construction, plus fulfilling special requirements, comprising: 1) list of names
and ID cards of the constituents of the worship house for at least amounting to 90
(Ninety) people, which have been authorized by local government official; 2) support
from surrounding community for at least amounting to 60 (sixty) people, which have been
authorized by Head of Village; 3) written recommendation from Head of Religion
Department of the Regency/City; and 4) written recommendation from The
Communication Forum of Religious Community (FKUB) of the Regency/City.26
The Facts that Contradicts with Policy
39. Violations of right of freedom of religion and belief were also happened in the cases of
worship house construction. Those forms of violation start from (a) prohibition,
discrimination of permit and obstructions in constructing the worship house, although all
of the requirements are fully accomplished; (b) terror and threats of violence against the
congregation; (c) prohibition to use the worship house; to (d) arbitrary sealing and closing
down, whether committed by the Government or Vigilante groups.
40. According to Setara Institute’s report, in 2008, there were 17 incidences; in 2009, there
were 18 incidences. In 2010, there were 27 cases of banning and attack against worship
houses (specifically against the Christians).27
41. The problem of worship house construction also bears several cases of violation against
freedom of religion and belief; among other things are: violence, intimidation,
stigmatization, eviction, etc. several examples of those cases are
42. The Case of HKBP Ciketing Church
a. Congregation of HKBP Ciketing is one of Christian groups who are still impeded to
construct their worship house until now, despite the fact that they have been
attempting since 1990. The impediment is sourced from two directions, from the
Government of Bekasi City by sealing off the worship house on Jalan Puyuh Raya
No. 1428
and from a group of vigilante mass, which wearing “Islamic” attributes and
white uniforms.29
b. Because of the intensity of force and eviction from the Local Government and
residents, since July 10th
, 2010, HKBP moved to Ciketing Asam, Mustika Jaya,
Bekasi, and planned to apply for the construction permit of building a worship house.
Although they have fulfilled all the obligatory requirements, the permit is still being
impeded; even the resist from vigilante group still happens. When the congregation
has moved to Ciketing and conduct worship there, the rejection of vigilante mass was
accompanied by attack and violence to prevent the congregation from worshiping.
Due to this incident, most of female HKBP congregations suffered injuries; on the
other hand the local Police only watched and let the violence acts continued.
c. Act of intolerance from the vigilante mass was also end up in the stabbing of one of
HKPB congregation (which is Mr. Asia Lumbantoruan Sihombing), when the
congregations were walking together to Ciketing from Jl. Puyuh Raya 14, by one of
motorcycle-convoy members wearing whites who brushed past the congregation
group. Owing to this incident, the stabbing perpetrator was only punished with 6
months of imprisonment, lighter that the sanction of religion defamation indictment
and it did not cause sense of dismay.
43. The annulment of Construction Permit (IMB) committed by the Mayor of Depok against
HKBP Cinere through the Letter number 645.8/144/Kpts/Sos/Huk/2009. In fact the
planning process of the church construction has accomplished all the requirements as
stipulated in the Joint Decree and received recommendation from FKUB of Depok. The
withdrawal of construction permit was without any reason at all, except from the
pressure of certain groups in the name of Cinere Islamic Solidarity Forum. 30
Violation by the Government
44. Based on the cases of attack and forceful closing of worship houses in Indonesia, the level
of Government’s involvement can be categorized into two levels:
a) The Government actively or directly committing violation. In the cases mentioned
above, the Government systematically committed violations against freedom of
religion, practicing religion, and constructing worship house within various forms: (a)
annulling Church’s construction permit or not issuing Church’s construction permit;
(b) Police officers and the Government committing sealing off and or closing down of
church; (c) committing repressive actions to disperse the worship practiced by the
church congregation; (d) lack of concrete action from the central Government (Home
Minister) to handle the issue of worship house construction, particularly in relation
with regional Government. (e) The Government (Ministry of Religion, the Police)
even provide support for vigilante groups to perpetrate terror and violence.
b) The Government commits neglect; among other things are: (a) lack of anticipation or
prevention from the Police against the attack perpetrated by the vigilante; (b) there is
not any serious investigation process to prosecute the perpetrators both at police and
district attorney levels.
c) The central and regional Governments frequently conform to the wish of majority
religion groups. In the construction of worship house, although they have fulfilled the
stipulation of regulation, but since there is rejection from majority of population, the
Government instead obeys the wish of certain group although it is against the law.
The case of GKI Yasmin is the most recent one.
Recommendation
45. First recommendation, urging the Government to eliminate policy and practice of
discrimination in constructing worship house. Second, urging the Government to revise
the 2 Ministries Joint Decree concerning the permit of constructing worship house in
order to guarantee the rights of minority. Third, urging the Government to be consistent
to and obey the legislation applies and not abided by vigilante group.
C. INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY
46. Law enforcement practices toward the violence perpetrator based on religion and beliefs
are very dilapidate from the independency, impartiality, security guarantee of the
judiciary compare with the result of attack which experienced by the victim31
. These
valuations are based from the pattern which occurred all this time on the judiciary
processes. Those patterns are:
a. To let the practices of violence without making any legal acts even though the law
apparatus are among the violence. These occurred in many practices of violence
which the police are in place, know the perpetrator, well known the incident, but
they don’t make any legal action.
b. Receive the report/complaints from the victim but there is no follow up from the
police.32
c. Blurred the construction case with keep at the distance from the dimension of
religion/faith violence and even made a weak construction so the perpetrator only
got a light impendence punishment and sentenced for that.
d. Using weak articles of criminal, made a light charge which causing a light
sentence. This is not proportional with violates, losses, and the victim’s suffer. This
is happen in the judiciary process of Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cikeusik attack,33
and
Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cisalada attack,34
also the case of burning the churches in,
Central Java.35
e. Proving construction is not lead to the fundamental events.
f. Judges, Attorney, Police in the processes of judicial, are acts unprofessional,
dependent, and partial. This conditions are affected by the bias vision of the
religious and beliefs rights also there are pressure from the mass who done the
violence, directly in the court or indirectly.
47. As the result, there are three characters in the issue of independence of judiciary; First
to cause the law enforcement processes is not guarantee the fairness to the victims (ease
the perpretator). Second to cause the victim as a suspect.
Recommendation
48. First push the Indonesia Government to guarantee the independence of judiciary. Push
the Police Force, Attorney, and Judges to act professionally, independent, and impartial.
Second, push the Judicial Commission to monitors, evaluate, and taking legal acts
toward various dependent, partial and unprofessional of the judicial processes. Third,
push the Police Force and Attorney to taking acts of every police and prosecutor
apparatus which violate the principles of Independence of Judiciary. Fourth, push the
Indonesia Government to give a rehabilitation or other mechanism to recovering every
victim whom criminalized by the sentences.
D. RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY FOR MINORITY RELIGION/BELIEF
GROUPS
49. In relation with the right of individual identity for minority religion/belief groups, so far
the policy of Government of Indonesia is still discriminative. It is reflected in the service
of Population Administration, particularly in identity of religion/belief inside the ID card.
This act of discrimination also causes various forms of other violations.
50. Although Law No. 23/2006 concerning Population Administration (Adminduk) and
Government Regulation No. 37/2007 bring advancement in the fulfillment of rights of
faith believers’ right in comparison to the previous legislation policy, however there are
discrimination acts still happened, particularly concerning the right of personal identity
(ID Card and Family Card). One of the reasons is that Population Administration Law
still recognizes 6 (six) official religions in Indonesia, therefore the Law does not
acknowledge the existence of other religion or belief.
51. The form of discrimination against minority religion/belief is reflected in the writing of
religion column in ID Card. For the faith believers, the column of religion shall be filled
with (-) symbol and for the faith believers who refuse to write (-) symbol, the officer shall
impose them to choose one of official religions acknowledged by the Government. The
account for religion in the document also implicates on other discrimination in other
administration services, such as registration of marriage, birth certificate, funeral,
education, and even social relieve.
52. In the field of education, faith believers must search for schools that can accept their
existence, because more than administration problem, the children of faith believers are
forced to write counterfeit religion (according to one of 6 religions acknowledged in
Indonesia) to be able to enroll. Faith believers’ children also face trouble, which is the
absence of specific religion education for faith believers. The children are forced to
follow religion education according to the existing official religions, that is to say: Islam,
Christian, etc, while in reality religion education become one of subject incorporated in
the Final Exam of Graduation.
53. Other form of violation suffered by a faith believer who keeps his status of religion/belief
is when enrolling as government employee (PNS), police member or Indonesia national
army. In this case, the faith believer is considered as unable to fulfill administrative
requirement, because his religion/belief is not part of the official religions.36
54. The Government of Indonesia recently in the process of generating electronic ID card (E-
KTP) that happens to be national policy, but the policy still reflects discriminative
practice and when this E-KTP is applied, then the rehabilitation of victims’ identities shall
be more complicated and cause greater burden.
Recommendations
55. First, urging the Government of Indonesia to eliminate policy and practice of
discrimination. Second, revising of Law 23/2006 concerning Civil Administration and
Government Regulation No. 37/2007 to ensure the elimination of discrimination in the
legislation. Third, executing moratorium of e-KTP process until acknowledgement of
right of identity is realized. Fourth, conducting remedy of right of identity and effects of
violation caused by it.
1 Article 28 I of Indonesia Constitution
2 Article 42 and 43 Legislation concerning Child Protection
3 Article 56 line (1) of Legislation concerning Child Protection
4 Article 65 Legislation concerning Child Protection
5 Article 3 of Law PNPS/1965
6 Article 156a of Indonesia Penal Code stipulates: “Everyone is prohibited to tell, to advice, or to gather
public support deliberately in public to exercise interpretation concerning certain main religion in Indonesia or
commit religious activities resembling to the activities of the religion, interpretation and other activity which is
deviating from the main teachings of the religion”.
7 As an example the faith believers to One God Almighty is not under the cover of Ministry of Religion
of the Republic of Indonesia, but still under the scope of Ministry of Culture and Tourism, because politically
and strategically Indonesia has not acknowledged this groups as official religions.
8 As in various statements of Minister of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia – Suryadarma Ali – in
taking position toward many cases of Ahmadiyya.
9 Several other cases i.e. HB Jassin (1968) was penalized with (1) one year of imprisonment with two
years probation; Arswendo Atmowiloto (1990) was penalized with 5 years of imprisonment; Saleh (1996), was
punished with 5 (five) years in prison; Lia Eden & Abdurrahman Eden (2006 and 2008); Ardi Husein (2005),
Sumardin Tapayya (2005),
10 Setara Institute, The State Must Take Position: Three Years Report on the Situation of Freedom of
Religion/Belief in Indonesia 2007-2009, p. 20, 46 and 63.
11 Decision of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 in 2010;
12 Ahmadiyya had been existed in Indonesia since 1925 and has obtained status as an institution from
Indonesia Minister of Justice No. JA/5/23/13 dated on March 13th
, 1953, and listed in the Supplementary State
News of the Republic of Indonesia No.26 dated on March 31st, 1953.
13 Fatwa MUI 2005 Number: 11/MUNAS VII/MUI/15/2005 concerning Sect of Ahmadiyya
14 Joint Decree of Minister of Religion (No. 3 of 2008), Attorney-General (No. Kep-003/A/JA/6/2008),
and Home Minister of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 199 of 2008) concerning Warning and Instruction for
Believers, Members and/or Board Members of Indonesia Ahmadiyya Congregation (JAI) and Members of the
Society.
15 Since 2008 to March 2011, 21 regional policies have been recorded. See Annex 1.
16 Form of other violation such as destruction of property, criminalization, teacher repositioning, etc.
2007–2009 Setara Institute Report, The State Must Take Position: Three Years Report on the Situation of
Freedom of Religion/Belief in Indonesia, (Jakarta: Pustaka Masyarakat Setara, 2010), p. 14; and 2010 Setara
Institute Report, The State Denies: Situation of Freedom of Religion in 2010, (Jakarta: Pustaka Masyarakat
Setara, 2011), p. 25
17 The demolition was anchored in a letter No. 300/448-Sekr, concerning the Plan of Termination of
Construction Activity of Religious Infrastructure of Ahmadiyya Congregation in Cisalada dated on July 9th
,
2010, signed by Head of Ciampea Sub-district - Budi Lukmanul Hakim
18 Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,
Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan (Thematic Review), Setara Institute, August 9th,
2010.
19 The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of Religion/Belief and Tolerance, (Jakarta: Wahid
Institute, December 2010), p. 62.
20 Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,
Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan, p. 5
21
Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,
Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan, p. 6; see also, Wahid Institute, The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of
Religion/Belief and Tolerance, 39
22 Wahid Institute, The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of Religion/Belief and Tolerance, 43
23 “Report of Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation’s Cases in 2011”, it is not published
24 At High Administrative Court, the GKI Yasmin party won the lawsuit of Church construction permit.
Due to this decision, the Government of Bogor City appealed for a Review at Supreme Court level and still won
by GKI Yasmin.
25 Joint Decree of Minister of Religion and Home Minister No. 09 of 2006 and number 8 of 2006 on the
Implementation of Head of Region’s Duty in Keeping the Harmony of Religious Communities, Empowerment
the Forum of Communication of Religious Communities and the Establishment of Worship House
26 Article 14 of 2 Ministries Joint Decree
27 Report of Wahid Institute, Annual Report of The Wahid Institute 2008: Tracking a Nation that
Becomes Fractured, (Jakarta: Wahid Institute, December 2008), p. 53.
28 The sealing was executed by Government of Bekasi City twice, on March 1
st, 2010 The Urban
Planning and Monitoring of Bekasi City and on June 20th
, 2010, the sealing was executed based on a letter of
Instruction from mayor of Bekasi, Moctar Mohamad Number: 800/1383-P2B/VI/2010, dated on June 17th
, 2010
29 According to report from HKBP Ciketing, the mass assemblage comprising approximately 50s people
are coming every time HKBP Congregation practiced worship, including on the celebration of holiday such as
Christmas, along with shouting words: “Dog, Pig, Christian, Infidel” From the banner brought by them and
short text messages distributed before the mass action were perpetrated on June 20th
and July 17th
, 2011, The
identified attacker groups are from the Forum of Islamic Community of Bekasi and Front of Islamic Defender
(FPI) of Bantar Gebang.
30 Wahid Institute, Monthly report on religious issues IX edition, April 2009
31 See Paragraph 33.
32 For instance; attack against Ahmadiyya Jamaa in Cisalada District, Bogor. More comprehensive report
is in the UPR for Freedom of Religion in Indonesia.
33 In the trial processes of Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cikeusik chapter which cause three people from Ahmadiyya
are brutally killed, twelve people from the attacker with the prejudgement of doing the attack by the
overwhelming number (Article 170 of Penal Code), cruel treatment (Article 160 of Penal Code), participate in
the attack (Article 358 of Penal Code), sentenced in prison for only 3 up to 6 months. While the victim from
Ahmadiyya Jamaa, Deden Sudjana, who was charged with the Article of light cruel treatment (Article 351 of
Penal Code), Incitement (Article 160 of Penal Code), and acting against the official (Article 212 of Penal Code),
was sentenced in prison for nine months. Moreover, Deden Sudjana was presented as an a de charge witness in
trial court of Adam Damini bin Armad, one of the defendant who done the attack. salahseorang terdakwa yang
melakukan penyerangan. Surprisingly, in that examination, the judges was not digging out the information
regarding to the participation of Adam Damini bin Armad in the incident of attack against Ahmadiyya Jamaa in
Cikeusik. Instead, the judges always questioning about the witness’s faith as a member of Ahmadiyya Jamaa.
34 In the judiciary process of the attack against Ahmadiyya in Cisalada Distric, Bogor, three persons from
the mass was sentenced in prison for four up to six months with the probation period for eight months up to one
year. Meanwhile, one person from the victim was sentenced for one year four months in prison without any
probation period. Besides, the Judges seems to be partial in prosecute that case. In the examination of witnesses,
the Judges were push the witness with the questions about his religion/belief. In other side, eventhough the
impedance sentences to the perpetator are up to five years in prison, but in practices the public prosecutor only
claim the low imprisonment of ten months in prison with one year probation.
35 8th February 2011, two days after the attack against Ahmadiyya in Cikeusik, there are not less than 2
churches in Temanggung, Central Java were burnt by the mob. The churches were burnt are Bethel Chruch and
Pantekosta Chruch (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/09/angry-crowds-destroy-three-churches-c-
java.html). This action triggered by the five years in prison verdict of Anthonius Richmord Bawengan because
he was prooved in doing the religious blasphemy. But in the other side, the verdict to the perpetators of burning
churches were only charge for one year in prison.
36 The report is based on the Report made by HRWG, MADIA, HPK, BKOK, “Demanding the
Fulfillment of Constitutional Rights of Faith Believers to One God Almighty”, (Jakarta: HRWG, 2010).