Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
Freedom of speech, widely regarded as being a central pillar of democratic government, is increasingly coming under threat and being criminalized under the pretense of protecting the country's power brokers from defamation and slander. Criticism is vital in a healthy democracy, however Indonesia seems to be moving backwards with regard to this issue.
Bagir Manan, Chairman of the Press Council, has asserted that media coverage often leads to legal disputes, as journalists who quote statements from their sources are often accused of defamation by aggrieved parties.
The settlement of such disputes should refer to Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press (Press Law). However instead, the media is being criminalized through the application of the ambiguous Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). This is despite the fact that, with regard to the settlement of press disputes, the Press Council and the National Police Headquarters are both signatories to a memorandum of understanding (MoU).
“It is not right that the National Police do not pay attention to the MoU,” stated Mr. Manan in a discussion held at the Press Council building earlier this week.
Mr. Manan, who once served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, explained that Article 310 was normally used by affronted parties in order to defend their perceived honor while also serving the purpose of shielding them from further inquiries and investigations.
Emerson Yuntho, a member of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), has also weighed into the discussion by stating that freedom of press resides at the absolute core of democracy. Yuntho also believes that other important elements of democracy will suffer if freedom of speech and the press are further restricted. The prevailing trend for the criminalization of the press when they print articles perceived to be offensive towards government officials is a worrying sign according to Yuntho.
“I have named this period the neo-new order,” quipped Yuntho.
Yuntho also stated that the MoU that exists between Police HQ and the Press Council was not being implemented effectively during the settlement of press disputes. Yuntho has personal experience of the current difficulties and has been questioned by investigators who remained unaware of the existence of the MoU in the first place.
“While I was being investigated, the investigator asks me to show him the MoU in question, which shows a great deal of ignorance on his part,”asserted Mr. Yuntho.
Activists tend to be outspoken about corruption and attempts to eradicate it, however their efforts are often ignored by the government. In this case, Mr. Yuntho failed to understand the reason behind his arrest, as the statement that he made was simply aimed at assisting the government in its efforts to select outstanding candidates possessed of sufficient competence to fill the position of the Head of the Corruption Eradication Commission Selection Committee.
Suwarjono, Chairman of the Independent Journalists Alliance (AJI), also believes that Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Transaction Information (the ITE Law) is another regulation that is being wrongly used in order to criminalize activists and critics of the government. A recent case involving the Commissioner of the Judicial Commission (KY) and ICW activists is a case in point.
“Those brave enough to speak out and people expressing their opinions are being criminalized. Criminalizing citizens in this way represents a serious threat to freedom of speech and to the press in this country,” explained Mr. Suwarjono.
Mr. Suwarjono asserted that citizens voiced their criticisms according their expertise and knowledge and that criminalizing competent critics in this way would result in the shutting down of criticism of the government and opinions being freely expressed. Suwarjono also emphasized that the Press Law was a sufficient mechanism through which press disputes could be settled via the rights to reply and have erroneous information corrected.
(hot/ja/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
Freedom of speech, widely regarded as being a central pillar of democratic government, is increasingly coming under threat and being criminalized under the pretense of protecting the country's power brokers from defamation and slander. Criticism is vital in a healthy democracy, however Indonesia seems to be moving backwards with regard to this issue.
Bagir Manan, Chairman of the Press Council, has asserted that media coverage often leads to legal disputes, as journalists who quote statements from their sources are often accused of defamation by aggrieved parties.
The settlement of such disputes should refer to Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press (Press Law). However instead, the media is being criminalized through the application of the ambiguous Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). This is despite the fact that, with regard to the settlement of press disputes, the Press Council and the National Police Headquarters are both signatories to a memorandum of understanding (MoU).
“It is not right that the National Police do not pay attention to the MoU,” stated Mr. Manan in a discussion held at the Press Council building earlier this week.
Mr. Manan, who once served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, explained that Article 310 was normally used by affronted parties in order to defend their perceived honor while also serving the purpose of shielding them from further inquiries and investigations.
Emerson Yuntho, a member of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), has also weighed into the discussion by stating that freedom of press resides at the absolute core of democracy. Yuntho also believes that other important elements of democracy will suffer if freedom of speech and the press are further restricted. The prevailing trend for the criminalization of the press when they print articles perceived to be offensive towards government officials is a worrying sign according to Yuntho.
“I have named this period the neo-new order,” quipped Yuntho.
Yuntho also stated that the MoU that exists between Police HQ and the Press Council was not being implemented effectively during the settlement of press disputes. Yuntho has personal experience of the current difficulties and has been questioned by investigators who remained unaware of the existence of the MoU in the first place.
“While I was being investigated, the investigator asks me to show him the MoU in question, which shows a great deal of ignorance on his part,”asserted Mr. Yuntho.
Activists tend to be outspoken about corruption and attempts to eradicate it, however their efforts are often ignored by the government. In this case, Mr. Yuntho failed to understand the reason behind his arrest, as the statement that he made was simply aimed at assisting the government in its efforts to select outstanding candidates possessed of sufficient competence to fill the position of the Head of the Corruption Eradication Commission Selection Committee.
Suwarjono, Chairman of the Independent Journalists Alliance (AJI), also believes that Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Transaction Information (the ITE Law) is another regulation that is being wrongly used in order to criminalize activists and critics of the government. A recent case involving the Commissioner of the Judicial Commission (KY) and ICW activists is a case in point.
“Those brave enough to speak out and people expressing their opinions are being criminalized. Criminalizing citizens in this way represents a serious threat to freedom of speech and to the press in this country,” explained Mr. Suwarjono.
Mr. Suwarjono asserted that citizens voiced their criticisms according their expertise and knowledge and that criminalizing competent critics in this way would result in the shutting down of criticism of the government and opinions being freely expressed. Suwarjono also emphasized that the Press Law was a sufficient mechanism through which press disputes could be settled via the rights to reply and have erroneous information corrected.
(hot/ja/sp)