TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The East Jakarta District Court's verdict sentencing three former leading figures of the Gerakan Fajar Nusantara (Gafatar, or National Dawn Movement) to five years in prison, clearly betrays the principles of religious freedom. This case also displayed our elastic law enforcement process, where provisions are manipulated accordingly.

The police initially arrested Ahmad Mushaddeq and his associates for blasphemy. They were accused of being hostile to, abusing and tarnishing religion by teaching 'Millah Ibrahimiah', their belief system, which differs from mainstream Islam. During their investigation, the police also slipped in a charge of treason. The men were finally charged with a conspiracy to overthrow the government by declaring a 'Negeri Karunia Tuan Semesta Alam Nusantara' [the Archipelagic State, Blessed by the Master of the Universe] as Gafatar's replacement.

During the trial, which began in the middle of last year, of the 24 witnesses called, most ended up favoring Mushaddeq and his associates, including those called by the prosecution. However, the judges did not take all their testimonies into account. At the end of the trial they acquitted Mushaddeq and the others of planning to overthrow the government. But they still sentenced them to jail on the blasphemy charge.

Mushaddeq and his associates were charged under an 'elastic' law, namely Article 156 a of the Criminal Code. In 2007, he was charged under the same violation and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Yet after his release, he managed to gather even more followers. This fact demonstrates that penalizing someone for his beliefs is a waste of time. History also provides ample proof that prison cannot change people's views or convictions.

Instead of inhibiting the public sense of 'unrest', a guilty verdict in a blasphemy case tends to produce and enhance an atmosphere of intolerance. From Amnesty International's 2005-2012 records, 106 people in Indonesia were imprisoned after being reported for blasphemy. In contrast, from 1965 to 1998, when citizens' freedoms were severely constrained under the New Order regime, only 10 people were charged for this crime. That is truly ironic.

Law enforcers should not forget or ignore the individual's right and freedom to practice a religion or belief of his choice, which is guaranteed under the Constitution. Article 28 E of the 1945 Constitution clearly states that every citizen is free to embrace a religion and hold their own beliefs. A similar guarantee is also enshrined in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Paradoxically, given this constitutional guarantee, the problem is that elements of blasphemy remain in effect, scattered within many laws. Recently, for instance, law enforcers have become enamored with charging 'blasphemers' under an article on incitement in the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, whose punishments are even more severe. Criminal provisions for blasphemy are still found in the revised Criminal Code Bill, now being deliberated in the House of Representatives (DPR).

In countries with greater respect for human rights, any stipulations on blasphemy has long ago been discarded. Even if provisions on 'defamation' are still retained, those are usually aimed at protecting an individual's honor, not that of something abstract, like religion.

To ensure they do not continue to claim more victims, our provisions on blasphemy should now be discarded. Those already imprisoned over this should be released and rehabilitated. Those whose rights were taken away from them on account of it, must be reinstated. It is not the State's task to penalize people just to preserve the 'purity' of an officially-acknowledged religion. It only needs to ensure that all citizens can practice their own religion and beliefs without any threat. (*)

Read the full story in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine