Erwida Maulia, Jakarta – Plaintiffs have demanded a judicial review of the 2008 pornography law by the Constitutional Court, saying the law had turned the country's cultural diversity into uniformity.

During the first hearing of the review Monday, the plaintiffs, comprising 11 people from Christian-majority Minahasa in North Sulawesi, asked the court to scrap three articles in the controversial law for "ruining the country's pluralism and harmony".

"All along, Indonesia has protected this diversity, until the endorsement of the pornography law, which turned our diversity into uniformity," the plaintiffs told the panel of judges presided over by justice Maria Farida Indrati.

The three contentious articles are Article 1(1), which defines the term "pornography"; Article 4(1d), which bans the production, distribution and other activities related to the dissemination of pornography that displays nudity; and Article 10, which bans people from performing porn-related acts in the public.

"What about the use of the koteka [a traditional penis sheath] in Papua? What about the jaipongan dance in West Java, and women wearing kemben [traditional strapless top] in Central Java and East Java?" the plaintiffs said.

"Nobody considers these pornographic; they are part of Indonesia's beautiful and rich culture that have attracted people from other countries."

They asked the court to declare the three contentious articles in violation of the Constitution and scrap them.

However, the judges questioned the legal standing of the plaintiffs, who said they spoke for the Minahasa tribal community. They asked the plaintiffs to provide proof confirming they were representatives of the Minahasa community.

The 11 plaintiffs each said they represented NGOs in Minahasa, including the Minahasa Bible (Masehi) Church, the North Sulawesi branch of the National Committee for Indonesian Youths, the Manado Catholic Youths, the Alliance of Southern Minahasa Students and Youths, and the Minahasa Cultural Assembly.

Should they fail to prove their status as representative of Minahasan people, the plaintiffs were told to present themselves as individuals instead.

The judges also criticized the plaintiffs' wrong citation of the contentious articles, and told them to name detrimental effects of the articles specific to the Minahasa community. The plaintiffs were given 14 days to comply with the judges' requests before a second hearing is held.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Rico Pandeirot, said after Monday's hearing that most Minahasa people were concerned that unclear regulations in the law could someday be abused. But he admitted the plaintiffs had failed to address concerns specific to the Minahasan people, as they preferred to present it from the "national perspective".

The controversial pornography law was passed by the House of Re-presentatives in October last year.