Hans David Tampubolon, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court almost unanimously turned down Thursday a judicial review filed against the controversial pornography law, but the ruling failed to extinguish the legislation's divisive nature.
In their verdict, all but one judge found no clauses in the law that contradicted the Constitution. They said the plaintiffs' argument that numerous clauses within the law ran counter to each other.
"Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejects the request to revise the clauses within the law," court chief Mahfud M.D. told a hearing. Bali was quick to respond to the court's verdict, with Governor Made Mangku Pastika saying the province would not comply with the law.
"Bali cannot enforce the pornography law because it does not suit the region's socio-psychological elements," Pastika said Thursday.
He insisted that the law as national legislation only met the judicial requirement as it was endorsed by the House, but it went against the social and cultural norms of Bali and its people.
Long before its endorsement by the House of Representatives in 2008, the law sparked criticism from civil groups and communities in East Indonesia, who fear it will stifle freedom of expression and the pluralist nature of Indonesian society.
Individuals and civil society groups such as the Indonesian Women's Coalition for Justice and Democracy, the Anand Ashram Foundation, the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute and the Women's Solidarity Union had sought the judicial review representing the sections of the public who are against the law.
The law also divided the panel of judges, as Maria Farida Indrati raised her dissenting opinion, which would hold no sway in the final outcome. Maria said she doubted the necessity of the law because regulations on moral behavior were prevalent in other laws.
"With so many regulations [on moral behavior], should we enact the pornography law that only provides mediocre regulations and sparks a host of problems in its formulation and implementation?" she said.
Maria deemed the law's very first clause, which stipulates the definition of "porn", to be open to interpretation and legally ambiguous.
The clause defines porn as "pictures, sketches, illustrations, photographs, articles, sounds, voices, moving pictures, animations, cartoons, conversations, body movements or other forms of messages through various communication mediums and/or public displays, that contain obscenity or sexual exploitation that violates community norms".
"So, based on my conclusion, I belief the plaintiffs' demands should be fulfilled," Maria said.
One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, Taufik Bashari, told a press conference he appreciated Maria's stance. "The dissenting opinion also shows that there are still a lot of problems with this law. This is not the end," he said.
He said the court ruling had failed to solve the substantive issue of the judicial review motion. "The ruling fails to look deeper into substantial issues, such as women's rights. The court failed to see that the real victims of this law will be women," he said.
Taufik said the plaintiffs would not stop their fight against the law and would continue to monitor its implementation. "There is still a way to revise this law through a legislative revision mechanism. So, we expect the House to take notice of the dissenting opinion and conduct a revision of the law," he said.