TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - One worrying question that emerges after the sentencing of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama is whether Indonesia is turning into a theocracy. The two-year sentence given to the now inactive Jakarta governor after he was found guilty of blasphemy, has damaged Indonesia's reputation as a democratic and moderate, tolerant nation.

The problem lies with the blasphemy article in the Criminal Code, which is wide open to misuse for political interests, to name one. This was the article used by the North Jakarta district court to convict Basuki. There was no dissenting opinion among the five judges headed by Jakarta District Court Chief Justice, Dwiarso Budi Santiarto, who was promoted to high court judge the day after the verdict.

The judges' ruling was even harsher than the punishment demanded by the prosecutors, which could lead to a jurisprudent problem. This is unusual because usually, the sentence is the same or more lenient than the prosecution's demand.

The Judicial Law gives judges independence in determining sentences, but in the case of Ahokas Basuki is better known the judges seemed to be lacking independence. The same was true of those prosecuting the case. These legal officials seemed to have forgotten the doctrine of fiat justitia ruat caelum: let justice be done though the heavens fall. It was their authority as upholders of the law that seems to have crumbled in the face of mob pressure.

Initially, the prosecution charged Ahok with insulting religion in violation of Article 156a of the Criminal Code. The basis for this was Ahok’s statement in which he quoted verse Al-Maidah:51 in a speech at the Thousand Islands last September. At that time, Basuki was officially campaigning to be re-elected governor of Jakarta, alongside his deputy, Djarot Saiful Hidayat. According to several opinion polls, they were more popular than the other two candidates.

Leaving aside the question of whether Ahok’s statement was wrong or not, it certainly did not sound blasphemous. The charges against him appeared after a video recording of the event was uploaded onto social media and edited to change the context by Buni Yani, a lecturer at a higher education institute in Jakarta who is now indicted for spreading hate speech.

In court, the prosecution failed to find any evidence of blasphemy by Ahok. The prosecutor removed Article 156a from the charges and only accused Ahok of breaching Article 156, inciting animosity towards a particular group, and demanded a one-year suspended prison term, for a total of two years. But the use of this article seemed rather contrived because if the prosecutors said the indictment was not that strong, they should have asked for Ahok’s acquittal. Therefore, it is no surprise that people are now questioning how the judges could say there had been blasphemy when this had not been established in court.

The High Court as judex factie (adjudicator of facts) or the Supreme Court as judex juris (adjudicator of law) should correct this verdict, especially since it should not have even gone to trial. This case was only taken to court because of significant pressure from a mob that was linked to the political rivalry in the Jakarta gubernatorial election.

No question, the blasphemy article was used as a political tool. Unfortunately, Ahok is not the only person to be a victim of this. The poorly-defined article can be used by anyone to throw a person in jail. Anyone who dares to question religious definitions can be charged with blasphemy.

The government and the House of Representatives (DPR) should amend this article, which is more suited to a theocracy. It is not appropriate for a democratic nation because, among other reasons, it violates freedom of expression, a right that a nation should fight for with all its strength. Those who discuss and criticize or question, the noble precepts of a religion should not be charged with a criminal offense.

In practice, the accusation of blasphemy can be used as an excuse for violence against minorities. We have often seen attacks by majority groups against others such as Shiahs or Ahmadiyahs, who have been accused of spreading false teachings. It is time this nation, which was founded to "protect all its people and every Indonesian", revoke this article.

The Jakarta High Court should acquit Ahok of the charge of blasphemy. He should be the last victim of this colonial-era law. Otherwise, we will surely head towards a theocracy.

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