Arghea Desafti Hapsari, Jakarta – Petitioners of a judicial review of the 1965 Blasphemy Law demanded Thursday that legislators review the recruitment process for Constitutional justices over allegations of partiality in a recent ruling by the court to uphold the controversial law.
Representatives from the Setara Institute and Elsam, both of which were plaintiffs in the case, and a team of lawyers met with several members of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) faction at the House of Representatives on Thursday.
Among their demands was for the faction to seek a mechanism to ensure the appointment of more "credible" Constitutional justices. "The ruling [on the Blasphemy Law] shows that the justices are not credible," one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, M. Choirul Anam, said.
The court's ruling, issued Monday with only one dissenting opinion, has since been criticized as a setback to democracy.
Petitioners comprising human rights groups and high-profile personalities have also said the justices distorted the opinions of several experts heard during the review. Anam said all justices must be free of conflicts of interest when dealing with a case.
"Because the Constitutional justices were formerly legislators, whose jobs concerned formulating and deliberating laws, there will be conflicts of interest when they have to decide on contested laws," he added.
The Constitutional Court has nine justices. Candidates' names for the positions are submitted by the Supreme Court, the House and the President.
Gayus Lumbuun, a PDI-P lawmaker, said that he would discuss the plaintiffs' demands in a faction meeting.
"They requested the House choose people well-versed on issues about religions and human rights and aware of the fact that the [amended] Constitution is more focused on human rights," he told The Jakarta Post.
The plaintiffs also urged the faction to start an examination of the court ruling. "We believe that the ruling legitimizes discrimination against religious minorities. The result of the examination can be used to state whether the law is in fact constitutional or not," Anam said.