Ina Parlina, Jakarta – Victims and families of human rights violations have joined forces to urge the Constitutional Court (MK) to review the Intelligence Law, arguing that some articles could be prone to abuse.

"We don't want to see this nation suffer a setback such as during Soeharto's authoritarian regime," said Al Araf from human rights watchdog Imparsial.

Other activists joining forces for the legal review are Suciwati, the widow of murdered human rights activist Munir Said Thalib, and Bedjo Untung, a man whose family members fell victim to the 1965 tragedy.

The human rights activists joined forces with advocates of press freedom to seek a judicial review at the Constitutional Court, only three months after the controversial Intelligence Law was enacted.

They feared that the law, enacted in October last year, would provide room for another human rights violation as some of the provisions had spawned a number of threats to civil liberties, human rights and freedom of the press.

As many as 18 plaintiffs, including the coalition, filed a motion at the court last Thursday. The coalition said that at least 16 provisions in the law could potentially harm the constitutional rights of citizens, because they were not in line with human rights or the Constitution.

"The law is filled with articles open to multiple interpretations, including loose definitions of national security threats and opponents," he told The Jakarta Post on Sunday. "This could be abused by a regime to arrest government critics and protesters; they may be only farmers or labors demanding their rights."

He added that the law also failed to clearly categorize the stated term "intelligence secret", citing that the relevant article defined it only as information that could "jeopardize national security".

"I'd say it is a subject of a misuse and will not provide legal certainty," he said. "And it overrides the existing Public Freedom of Information Law."

He added that the law also threatened journalists as it could be used to criminalise the spread of public information deemed as intelligence secrets.

"It is the same as with civilians; it may be used to put them in jail due to leakage of intelligence information," he said. "It is not fair as the ones who use such information are the intelligence officers. So they are the ones who must be held responsible for the leakage, not the people."

The coalition also said that they opposed the idea of giving state institutions the authority to conduct "intelligence extracting information" activities as this could be prone to abuse.

The law gives the state the authority to extract information from a person but not the power to arrest him or her. Yet, it stipulates that intelligence officers can work with related law enforcements in this effort.

Despite some flaws, Al Araf said, the coalition did not reject the law in its entirety, only the provisions threatening the constitutional rights of the public.

The same coalition once demanded that the lawmakers include human rights issues in the law during the deliberation of the bill by the members of the House of Representatives Commission I overseeing defense and security affairs.