Anastasia Winanti Riesardhy & Markus Junianto Sihaloho – The debate over a government proposal to reinstate criminal charges for insulting the president is heating up, with critics calling the move unconstitutional and proponents arguing for the need to safeguard the president's dignity.

Irman Putra Sidin, a state administrative law expert from the University of Indonesia, pointed out on Friday that the article in question, included in proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, had previously been struck down by the Constitutional Court.

"So it would be haram [forbidden under Islam] for the House of Representatives and the president to seek to revive this article," he said in Jakarta. "It's the same as bashing the essence of the Constitution."

Irman said the government should understand that citizens had a right to criticize public officials, including the president, within the bounds of reason and if the criticism was warranted.

But he also said there should be a set of standards in place to gauge what kind of criticism was permissible and what was considered excessive or inappropriate.

"We need to have this system in place so that we can have a constructive and civilized discourse. That's the kind of thing we should be working toward, not trying to revive a mummified article," he said. "Even with that article in place, it would not guarantee legal protection for the presidency from criticism."

The Criminal Code previously included an article that made insulting the president or vice president a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and Rp 300 million ($31,000) in fines.

However, it was struck down in 2006 by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it infringed on citizens' constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

The government is now seeking to reintroduce the article in proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a draft bill of which was submitted to the House last month for deliberation.

Irman said that even if the House approved of the article for passage along with the other amendments, it was bound to be challenged once again at the Constitutional Court and struck down.

However, Ahmad Basarah, a legislator on House Commission III, which oversees legal affairs and is responsible for reviewing the proposed amendments, said he believed the article was necessary to uphold the dignity of the presidency as an institution, and not necessarily of the president as an individual.

"We have to have measures protecting the rights of the officeholder and the dignity of the office," he said.

But he also acknowledged the right of citizens to criticize the president, and said the proposed article should make a clear and unwavering distinction between a critique and an insult.

He also promised that the House would consider all arguments when deliberating the bill to ensure that lawmakers arrived at the best outcome possible.

"We have to involve all stakeholders in our discussions, so that the definitions of insults and critiques are clearly outlined and not open to interpretation in the future," Ahmad said.