Higher courts are regarded as the definitive bastion of justice. Unbound by the rigidity of legalese, they are sought to contemplate rulings with consequence through a wider socio-political spectrum reaching towards a progressive society.
Supreme court-level rulings are often nation-changing ones which shape the evolution of communities, expanding what many thought was impossible or improbable. In essence, supreme courts don't just function as adjudicators but as important agents of change.
It was regrettable that the Constitutional Court on Monday failed to fulfill their duty beyond the limited reason of strict judicial logic.
By upholding the 1965 Blasphemy Law, the court chose to effectively retain the status quo instead of bolstering liberal innovation. The statements of judges revealed them trapped to be in the cliches of the rhetorical past: "This law is very important... to prevent horizontal and vertical conflicts," one Constitutional justice said.
The request for a judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on Religious Blasphemy was filed by plaintiffs who argued that the law contained articles discriminatory to interfaith adherents and against the principles of diversity, open-mindedness and religious freedom of the 1945 Constitution.
At the heart of the argument was not the question of whether there should be laws on libel related to religion, but that the 1965 law was an inherent part of a set of regulations which perpetuated restrictions on freedom of faith.
At the very center of this debate was the question of why the state deemed it necessary to only acknowledge the existence of six religions – Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism – and in effect, make other denominations easy prey and more liable to fall into the category of being blasphemous.
The sole dissenting voice of the nine-panel judges was that of Maria Farida Indrati, who said the law often triggered arbitrary actions in the implementation of the law.
It is becomingly clear that the Constitutional Court is made up of eight conservative men and an open-minded female.
Monday's decision comes a month after the Constitutional Court also rejected the judicial review filed against the controversial pornography law. Maria Farida Indrati was again the sole dissenting voice during that ruling.
In the wake of this disappointing ruling, we believe the door to freedom of faith is still ajar. Changing attitudes, education and increasing social consciousness are just as effecting in moving the national mindset towards broader freedoms.
Not least, novel laws could be solicited which would make previous legislation invalid and free God from the shackles of the state. Amen!