ALTERNATIVE REPORT

OF THE 2008 UPR RECOMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION FOR

INDONESIA AS A STATE CONCERNED

Concerning On Freedom of Religion and Beliefs Issue in Indonesia

Submitted in 1st Session of 2nd Cycle of the

HRC’s UPR Review in 2012

Prepared by;

HRWG Indonesia's NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy

Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy

Jakarta Legal Aid Institute

Setara Insitute The Indonesia Legal Resource Center

Wahid Institute

in collaboration with;

Center for Marginalized Communities Studies (CMARs).

November 2011

An overview;

Human Rights Working Group (HRWG)The Indonesia's NGO Coalition for International Human

Rights Advocacy (HRWG) was established in 2003 by a the majority of NGOs working in different

issues to elaborate advocacy works already in place with the aim of maximizing the goals and putting

more pressures on the Indonesian government to execute its international and constitutional

obligations of human rights in the country.

ELSAM (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy), was establishes in 1983 in the spirit of

encouraging the development of a democratic political order, by means of strengthening civil society

through advocacy and promotion of human rights in Indonesia. ELSAM's mission is to promote the

existence of a society that respects the values of human rights and democracy and attains social

justice as well as gender sensitivity.

LBH Jakarta (Jakarta Legal Aid Institute), was established of the idea addressed on the Indonesian

Bar Association (PERADIN) 3rd congress in 1969. It was aimed to provide legal aid for the poor in

defending their rights especially the poor which are victim of force eviction, marginalization, lay off

and human rights violation in general. The decision on the establishment of The Jakarta Legal Aid

Institute and The Public Defender Institute that came into force in October 28, 1970.

SETARA INSITUTE, was founded by those persons who care about elimination or decreasing of

discrimination and intolerability based on religion, ethnic, race, skin color, gender, and other social

strata as well as increasing solidarity to those who are weak and detriment. SETARA INSTITUTE for

Democracy and Peace takes part in urging an open political condition based on the respect on

diversity, defending of human rights, elimination intolerability and xenophobia.

Indonesia Legal Resource Center (ILRC), The founding of ILRC was part of our concern on legal

education that is not responsive to social justice problems. The legal education in the university

tends to make students be profit lawyers and ignoring the social justice problems. Although they

have the instruments (institutions) to provide pro bono for poor people, but they exercise it for

different purpose.

The Wahid Institute, is committed to the exchange and dissemination of progressive Muslims

thought to promote tolerance and understanding in the world. In particular, the institute is

committed to developing a dialogue between the highest spiritual and political leaders in the West

and Muslim world.

Center for Marginalized Communities Studies (CMARs), was established in 2004 from the study

forum which involve academics, activists, and the Islamic religious figures whom are concerned

about the living of socio-politics-culture in Indonesia after Reformation was decorated which further

strengthening the alienation of marginal communities such as; attack against the minority based on

religion/faith, marginalization of indigenous people, criminalization of women’s body, denial of the

existence of LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual, Transgender, Interseks, and Queer) community.

REPORT FOR THE CONDITION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND

BELIEF STATUS IN INDONESIA

PREFACE

1. This report is prepared by a number of CSOs concentrated on issues of freedom of

religion and belief in Indonesia, i.e.: Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), LBH

Jakarta (Jakarta Legal Aid Institute), The Wahid Institute, The Indonesia Legal Resource

Center (ILRC), Setara Institute, ELSAM, and Center for Marginalized Communities

Studies (CMARs).

2. This report was also disseminated in a National Workshop on November 11th

, 2011 to

pull together outlook and input from CSOs.

3. This report is arranged based on 2008 UPR Working Group to continuously provide

protection for the entire components of Indonesian society. (Recommendation, paragraph

77.5), particularly concerning threats and violence against Ahmadiyya Congregation

(Jemaah Ahmadiyah) in Indonesia, as well as the development of freedom of religion and

belief status in Indonesia, as asserted in the recommendation, paragraph 78.

A. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. The right of freedom of religion/belief possesses strong juridical footing. Indonesia has

laws and regulations as the foundation for recognition, protection, respect and promotion

of Human Rights, including within it the right of freedom of religion and belief.

Nevertheless, there are many national legislation products threatening freedom of religion

and belief.

Regulations that Guarantee Freedom of Religion and Belief

2. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 29 line (2) declares: “The state

guarantees each and every citizen the freedom of religion and of worship in accordance

with his religion and belief”. Article 28E Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,

acknowledges every person’s freedom to hold religion and practice the religion of his

choice, to choose education and schooling, and has the right to be free in his convictions,

assert his thoughts and tenets, in accordance with his conscience. The Constitution

incorporates the freedom of religion/belief as “Human Rights that cannot be derogated in

any circumstances (non-derogable rights)”.1

3. In the Legislation No. 39/1999 concerning Human Rights says that freedom of

religion/belief is a part of Human Rights and cannot be derogated (Article 4 Human

Rights Law) Article 22 of Human Rights Law guarantees freedom of religion, that: (1)

Everyone has the right to freedom to choose his religion and to worship according to the

teachings of his religion and beliefs; (2) The state guarantees everyone the freedom to

choose and practice his religion and to worship according to his religion and beliefs.

Followed by Article 55 of the Law guarantees child’s right to hold his religion: “Every

child has the right to practice his religion, and to think and express himself as befits his

intellectual capacity and age under the guidance of a parent or guardian”.

4. In the Legislation No. 23/2003 concerning Child Protection also regulates on right of

freedom of religion and belief professed by each child. Every child has the right to

practice his religion according his religion under the guidance of parent and the

State/Government has obligation and is responsible for respecting and guaranteeing every

child’s rights without any background discrimination (Article 6 and 21). The Act also

guarantees the protection to practice religion according to the child’s religion, including

protection for child who cannot yet decide his choice,2 as well as in organizing child

nursing and care, the Government is obligated to strive for and facilitate children so as to

children can be free to express their opinion and to think according to their conscience

and religion.3 The Child Protection Act also acknowledges special protection for child of

minority and isolated groups, by providing facilities and infrastructures to profess and

practice his own religion and everyone is prohibited from preventing child from

professing and practicing his religion.4

5. Specifically some articles in Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) imply the existence of

protection for freedom of religion or belief, one other thing is Article 156 jo 157

concerning spreading of hatred against a group of population (based on race group,

native country, religion, place of origin, descent, and nationality or position according to

state administration) and Article 176 on preventing a religious meeting/activity.

6. Law No. 20/2003 concerning National Education System in Article 12, line (1), letter a

guarantees every child to obtain education in accordance with his religion. This article

stipulates: “Every schooling participant has the right to obtain religious education in

accordance with the religion he profess and to be taught by teacher of the same religion as

his”.

Regulation that Curbing and Threatening Freedom of Religion/Belief

7. Law No.1/PNPS/1965 concerning Prevention of Mistreatment and/or Blasphemy of

Religion is frequently utilized by the Government to restrain the right of freedom of

religion and belief. Article 1 of Law No.1/PNPS/1965 prohibits every person to tell

interpretation or to conduct activity that deviated from the main teachings of the 6 (six)

official religions. While Article 2 provides authority for the Minister of Religion, Home

Minister, and Attorney-General to give warning to someone in order to stop outlawed

activity in keeping with Article 1 and for the President to close down organization or sect

of belief who violates the stipulation of Article 1. The perpetrator who violates Article 1

above is threatened with 5 years of imprisonment for the utmost sanction.5

8. Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 happens to be the basic existence of Article 156a of Indonesian

Penal Code (KUHP) concerning the prohibition of “deviated” interpretation on certain

acknowledged religion in Indonesia. Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) is

also utilized as a clause in criminalizing minority groups of religion/belief with excuse of

defamation of authorized religions.6

9. Law No. Number 23 of 2006 concerning Population Administration (Article 8(2), 61(4),

and 64(2)) also emphasizes the acknowledgement of 6 official religions in Indonesia as

the identities of citizens, accordingly it discriminates personal identity of other religion/

belief/faith groups.7

10. Several other regulations and policies that threaten freedom of religion and belief among

other thing is 3 Ministries Joint Decree in 2008, which in essence it prohibits activity and

dissemination of Ahmadiyya Congregation in Indonesia. Local Government Regulations

and Decrees (in levels of Provinces and Regencies/Cities) that forbid activity and

dissemination of Ahmadiyya, as well as policies that in principle have violated the

standard of national and international Human Rights, such as the Decree concerning

annulment of permit and prohibition of constructing worship house. (Annex 1)

11. From a number of legislations above, in practice:

a. The State/the Government are still inclined to employ articles that violate freedom of

religion, instead of employing regulations that guarantee freedom of religion. In the

same way that the legislation of prohibiting hate speech, which is regulated in Article

156 jo 157 of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), has never been implemented in taking

action against the perpetrators, in some cases the Government is actively involved in

perpetrating hate speech.8

b. The Government continually exploits Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 in addressing difference

of opinions in religion/belief; therefore the policies taken are the banning, curbing,

and even criminalizing it, instead of using articles that provide protection and

guarantee for freedom of religion. As example in this case are the Government’s

position against Ahmadiyya and other groups.

c. Until now there are still occur discriminative policies against minority

religion/belief/faith groups in Population Administration. The policy is derived from

Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 and Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration, thus the

right of religion/belief of certain beliefs is not acknowledged. As example, the case of

ID card making that instigates many other rights to be overlooked because they have

been obstructed by ID card (administration) prerequisite.

d. The organizing of education based on Legislation concerning National Education

System that guarantees each of schooling participants to obtain religious education in

accordance with his religion, however in reality it is not applied for other minority

faith and religion/belief groups, moreover in providing teacher compliant with his

religion.

Recommendation

12. First, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement the Constitution that guarantees

freedom of religion and belief in Indonesia maximally, specifically Article 28E and 29

(2) of the Constitution, as well as several Laws that also give such guarantee, for instance

the Human Rights Law. Second, urging the Government to revise legislation and policy

that threaten freedom of religion and belief, such as Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 and Law No.

23/2006 (Population Administration). Specifically, concerning revision to Law No.

1/PNPS/1965 as in Constitutional Court’s Decree No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 of 2010. Third,

urging the Government to abolish Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), 3

Ministries Joint Decree concerning Ahmadiyya and Local Government regulations that

threaten freedom of religion and belief. Fourth, implementing religious education

according to the teachings of each person’s religion and belief as in Article 12 (1) of

National Education System Law, including within it providing teacher in reference to

each religion/belief.

B. SERIOUS ISSUES AND THEMES OF IMPLEMENTATION AND CASES OF

THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN INDONESIA

DEFAMATION OF RELIGION

13. In Indonesia, every person who commit practice and interpretation of religion outside the

majority mainstreams is considered as perpetrating blasphemy and committing

defamation of religion, based on Law No.1/PNPS/1965, and criminalized based on

Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP).

14. Based on Law No. 1/PNPS/1965, the authorization to monitor, consider, and prohibit

religious practices and interpretations outside the majority mainstream is performed by

Attorney General. Subsequently, Attorney General assembles Monitoring of Spiritual

Beliefs in Society Task Force (Bakor Pakem) based on Decree No. KEP-004/J.A./01/1994

which in national level, its members are comprised from Home Ministry, Ministry of

Education and Culture, Attorney General Office, Ministry of Religion, Ministry of

Justice, National Army Headquarter (TNI), National Intelligence Agency (BIN), and

National Police Headquarter.

15. There are several characters of practice occurred in defamation of religion. First, the

State intervened freedom of religion and belief that contradicts with the Constitution and

Human Rights principles. Second, in various cases, the action taken by the Government

was an abuse of power, because often it was based on request of certain vigilante groups

without specific measurement and not fulfilling legal procedure. Third, in practice, the

Government’s action was based on political interests at national and regional levels.

16. In addition, the existence of ‘deviant’ fatwa issued by Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI)

arbitrarily constituted a legal basis for the Governments (national and local) to

criminalize minority groups in the name of religious defamation. In addition to that,

fatwa MUI was used as a reason for radical Islamic groups to perpetrate various violent

acts against minority groups.

17. Several examples of criminalization cases of religious defamation derived from Law No.

1/PNPS/1965 Jo. Article 156a of Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), among other things

are the Verdict of High Court of Padang concerning Qiyadah Islamiyah followers (2008),

prohibition of Gernard Meliala in North Sumatra (January 2009), Drs FX Marjana

(2009),9 arrest of the Leader of Nabi Akhir Jaman (End of Time Prophet) cult - Danan

Aritonang in Medan (January 2011), arrest of Satria Piningit sect in Jakarta (January

2009), arrest of the Leader of Praying Group of Sion Kota Allah and 9 of his followers

(May 2009) and the closing down of Tarikot Qodariyah Naqsabandiyah cult in

Pandeglang, Banten by MUI and Bakorpakem, and case of Richmond Bawengan

(February 2011). In addition to those cases above, there are statements, encouragement

and pressures from Local Government and Regional MUI to Bakorpakem to disperse or

punish the cults which were considered as deviant and disturbing the public. 10

Judicial Review/Effort conducted by Civil Society

18. In 2010 Constitutional Court decided that Law No.1/PNPS/1965 to be revised in order to

guarantee further the freedom of religion and belief. This Constitutional Court’s decision

was based on judicial review proposed by civil society11

19. Until now, the decision of Constitutional Court has never been executed effectively by

the Government, and in practice the Law No.1/PNPS/1965 is still applied.

Recommendations

20. Recommendations; First, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement the decision

of Constitutional Court to revise the Law No. 1/PNPS/1965, and to declare the law

inapplicable. Second, urging the Government of Indonesia to disperse the Monitoring of

Spiritual Beliefs in Society Task Force (Bakor Pakem), because it contradicts with the

Constitution, Human Rights principles, and in practice become the only institution

perpetrating the expropriation of freedom of religion and belief in Indonesia. Third,

urging the Government of Indonesia to abolish MUI ‘deviant” fatwas, because they are

contradict with the Constitution, and enforcing the law if the fatwa is proved to have

raised various violent acts against minority groups.

DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLENCE AGAINST AHMADIYYA

21. One of significant issues and that it dominated religion/belief-based violence between

2008 -2011 is violence case against Ahmadiyya Congregation.12

22. The escalation of violence and violation against this group increased since the release of

MUI fatwa in 1980, and Fatwa MUI of 2005 declaring that Ahmadiyya is deviant and

strayed and subsequently asking the Government to outlaw the dissemination of

Ahmadiyya in Indonesia and to freeze down the organization and its places of activity .13

23. Later in 2008, Home Minister, Minister of Religion, and Attorney-General issued Joint

Decree (SKB) which contained limitation of worship activity and dissemination of

Ahmadiyya Congregation in Indonesia.14

This SKB triggered the occurrence of various

regional regulations (in Province and Regency/City levels) that forbid activity and

dissemination of Ahmadiyya.15

(Annex 2).

24. 3 Ministries Joint Decree also triggered the increase of violence against Ahmadiyya

Congregation perpetrated by vigilante groups (Islamic-radical). The data compiled by

Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation and HRWG since 2008-2010 records 77 cases of violence.

25. Based on Setara Institute’s monitoring result, there are 271 types of breach that have been

perpetrated against Ahmadiyya Congregation communities in period of 2008-2010, such

as murder, eviction, expropriation of property, outlawing worship, sealing of mosques. 16

Example of Violence Practice against Ahmadiyya

26. Common character of breach against freedom of religion;

Violation against freedom of religion and belief against Ahmadiyya was perpetrated

systematically in the form of persecution. The variety of persecution among other things

is;

a. The existence of attack and violence, whether verbal violence, including: harassment

against Ahmadiyya women, hate speech, intimidation; and physical violence, such as

the difficulties in order to obtain civil registration service, destruction over property,

closing down of mosque, burning down, forced eviction, and murder. Those violent

acts are not only happened in one region, but almost in every region in Indonesia.

b. The existence of State Policies that discriminate and legitimize it in the form of

regulations and policies at national and regional levels.

27. Several cases of violence and attack against Ahmadiyya’s residence and area up to 2011

are:

a. In Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, in 2001 there was an attack against Ahmadiyya

quarters and caused 379 people of Ahmadiyya Congregation to be forcefully driven

out toward the former Praya Hospital and Wisma Transito Mataram, which until now

there are still approximately 157 people of Ahmadiyya Congregation who still

inhabit the refuge.

b. In 2005, annual meeting (Jalsah Salanah) which was organized in JAI Headquarter of

Parung, Bogor was forcefully dispersed by Islamic radical group, the Police and

Municipality Police Unit. Until now, JAI office is still in sealed off condition.

c. On February 6th

, 2011 JAI community in Cikeusik-Banten was attack and some were

brutally killed. They were brutally abused, which caused 3 people killed, 16 others

injured, 1 house destroyed and 2 cars were burnt.

28. Moreover, attack and closing down of worship house were also imposed over

Ahmadiyya Congregation Indonesia, whether by the Government or Vigilante groups.

From 2008 to 2011, there are several cases of attack and closing down of JAI worship

house, i.e. in Cisalada-Bogor, Sukapura-Tasikmalaya, Kuningan Regency, Depok, and

Ciamis – All in West Java Province, and in Makassar- South Sulawesi.

a. Monday, July 12th

2010, the construction to widen JAI mosque in Cisalada, Ciampea

Udik, Ciampea, Bogor was ceased by Municipality Police Unit by cutting the metal

shafts to be use as foundation of the mosque.17

The demolition was lead by Head of

Ciampea Sub-district along with 24 members of Municipality Police Unit and helped

by police officers from District Police Station (Polsek) and Sub-Precinct Police

Station (Polres) of Bogor amounting to 300 personals.18

Later on July 12th

, 2010,

thousands of Cisalada population surrounded the JAI location in Cisalada, Ciampea

Udik village, Ciampea Sub-district, Regency of Bogor. They demanded to have the

worship house, school and foundation of the mosque demolished.19

b. January 10th

, 2008 FPI mass perpetrated destruction over Baitul Rahim mosque,

Cipakat Cipasung Singaparna, Tasikmalaya Regency. One year previously, JAI

Mosque of Sukapura Tasikmalaya was also demolished.20

c. July 29th

, 2010 a JAI mosque (An-Nur) and 6 mushala were sealed off in Kuningan.

On July 8th

, 2010 Regent of Kuningan has delivered the plan of sealing off

Ahmadiyya Congregation’s mosque and mushala, by reasoning of protecting

conducive situation and in order to avoid Human Rights violation for the second time,

and anchored in the recommendation of Indonesia Ulema Council number 38/MUI-

Kab/VI/ 2010 (June 24th

, 2010). Equipped with Regent’s Instruction No. 451.2/2065/

SAT POL PP dated on July 23rd

, on July 26th

, 2010 and July 28th

, 2010 the

Municipality Police Unit members executed the sealing.21

d. October 29th

, 2010, Regent of Ciamis-West Java, Engkon Komara and Council for

Provincial and Lower Level Government Officials (Muspida) elements, committed a

deal with FPI Ciamis to outlaw Ahmadiyya residents to conduct religious activities in

Ahmadiyya mosque on Jalan Cipto Mangunkusumo Dusun Pakuncen Village/Sub-

district of Ciamis. This deal was adopted after FPI had wanted to seal off Ahmadiyya

mosque for the reason that it was considered as violating 3 Ministries Joint Decree of

2008.22

e. In Depok-West Java, forceful sealing off and closing down were also happened in

March 2011. The mosque until now cannot be used anymore because the

congregation was threatened to be other victim such as what has happened in

Cikeusik by the group (Vigilante) who perpetrated the forceful closure.

f. In East Indonesia (Makassar), forceful closure of mosque in Makassar was directly

led by Chief of Provincial Police of Makassar, although there has never been any

instruction from court order to execute the closure.23

29. Various violence cases occur have received attention from international communities

through various UN mechanisms particularly the Special Procedure and attention from

various fellow countries. However, practices of violence are still happened and there has

not been any effective and significant measure to protect Ahmadiyya Congregation and to

take firm action to punish the violence perpetrator.

Recommendation

30. First, Urging the Government of Indonesia to guarantee and protect Ahmadiyya

Congregation from all forms of violence act. Second, urging the Government of

Indonesia to eradicate regulation or policy that cause violence habit against Ahmadiyya

Congregation (Law No.1/PNPS/1965, 3 Ministries Joint Decree, and various regional

regulations). Third, urging the Government of Indonesia to implement effective legal

process against violence perpetrators. Fourth, urging the Government of Indonesia to

grant effective remedy in all aspects of life for Ahmadiyya Congregation including their

properties (worship houses, homes, etc). Fifth, urging international community to

conduct monitoring and expect the Government of Indonesia to respect and guarantee the

rights of Ahmadiyya Congregation Indonesia.

ABUSE OF POWER TOWARD INDONESIA CHRISTIAN CHURCH (GKI) TAMAN

YASMIN BOGOR

31. Congregation of GKI Yasmin has obtained Construction Permit (Church) from the

Mayor of Bogor - Diani Budiarto - in 2006; however, in 2008 the construction permit

(IMB) was frozen. Due to the permit freezing, GKI Yasmin congregation could not

practice worship in their church.

32. Then GKI Yasmin Congregation fought through legal channel. The fight was won by

GKI Yasmin party, both at the High Administrative Court and Supreme Court levels.24

Nevertheless, the Government of Bogor continues to ban GKI Yasmin to practice

worship in their church.

33. On the incidents of defiance committed by Government of Bogor City, GKI Yasmin

Congregation has reported to Commission III of the House of Representatives of the

Republic of Indonesia, the Ombudsman, and National Commission on Human Rights.

Ombudsman has twice sent letters to the Mayor of Bogor in 2010 that questioned the

implementation of the High Administrative Court Bandung’s decision. Due to the

noncompliance of Government of Bogor City, on July 8th

, 2011 the Ombudsman

recommended Mayor of Bogor to annul the Decree concerning the Construction Permit

withdrawal, require him to execute the recommendation, and for the Home Minister to

apply monitoring over the implementation of the recommendation, with carbon copy to

the President and House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia.

34. In the series of legal process mentioned above, Mayor of Bogor, Home Minister,

President and House of Representatives did not conduct any concrete measures toward

the implementation of the court verdict and recommendation from various state

institutions. Even, the Mayor of Bogor committed provocative acts and gave “facility”

for vigilante groups (hard-line Islamic groups).

35. As the result of the Mayor’s acts, GKI Yasmin congregation received terror,

intimidation, hatred incitement from vigilante groups that still continue. It has been run

since April 2010 to November 19th

, 2011, which caused GKI Yasmin congregation have

to practice worship on the sidewalk of the church, that legally owned by them. And it has

been recorded that they have practiced worships for 65 times from April 11, 2010 until

November 13, 2011.

36. GKI Yasmin case also receives attention from the UN mechanisms especially the Special

Procedure and attention from many fellow countries. In spite of this, there has not been

any concrete action taken by the Government of Indonesia even particularly in the

practice of Government of Bogor in ‘facilitating’ violence.

Recommendations

37. First, urging the Government, specifically the President of the Republic of Indonesia,

Home Minister and Mayor of Bogor to obey the final verdict of Supreme Court and

implement the recommendation from Ombudsman and National Commission on Human

Rights. Second, urging the Government to take legal and administrative measures upon

Mayor of Bogor. Third, urging international community to conduct monitoring and

expect the Government Indonesia to respect and guarantee the rights of GKI Yasmin

congregation.

THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT HOUSE OF WORSHIP

The Policy of Constructing Worship House in Indonesia

38. The policy concerning worship house is regulated in the Joint Decree of Minister of

Religion and Home Minister (2 Ministries Joint Decree).25

There are requirements that

have been established in the 2 Ministries Joint Decree relating to the construction of

worship house, i.e.: fulfilling administrative requirements and technical requirements of

building construction, plus fulfilling special requirements, comprising: 1) list of names

and ID cards of the constituents of the worship house for at least amounting to 90

(Ninety) people, which have been authorized by local government official; 2) support

from surrounding community for at least amounting to 60 (sixty) people, which have been

authorized by Head of Village; 3) written recommendation from Head of Religion

Department of the Regency/City; and 4) written recommendation from The

Communication Forum of Religious Community (FKUB) of the Regency/City.26

The Facts that Contradicts with Policy

39. Violations of right of freedom of religion and belief were also happened in the cases of

worship house construction. Those forms of violation start from (a) prohibition,

discrimination of permit and obstructions in constructing the worship house, although all

of the requirements are fully accomplished; (b) terror and threats of violence against the

congregation; (c) prohibition to use the worship house; to (d) arbitrary sealing and closing

down, whether committed by the Government or Vigilante groups.

40. According to Setara Institute’s report, in 2008, there were 17 incidences; in 2009, there

were 18 incidences. In 2010, there were 27 cases of banning and attack against worship

houses (specifically against the Christians).27

41. The problem of worship house construction also bears several cases of violation against

freedom of religion and belief; among other things are: violence, intimidation,

stigmatization, eviction, etc. several examples of those cases are

42. The Case of HKBP Ciketing Church

a. Congregation of HKBP Ciketing is one of Christian groups who are still impeded to

construct their worship house until now, despite the fact that they have been

attempting since 1990. The impediment is sourced from two directions, from the

Government of Bekasi City by sealing off the worship house on Jalan Puyuh Raya

No. 1428

and from a group of vigilante mass, which wearing “Islamic” attributes and

white uniforms.29

b. Because of the intensity of force and eviction from the Local Government and

residents, since July 10th

, 2010, HKBP moved to Ciketing Asam, Mustika Jaya,

Bekasi, and planned to apply for the construction permit of building a worship house.

Although they have fulfilled all the obligatory requirements, the permit is still being

impeded; even the resist from vigilante group still happens. When the congregation

has moved to Ciketing and conduct worship there, the rejection of vigilante mass was

accompanied by attack and violence to prevent the congregation from worshiping.

Due to this incident, most of female HKBP congregations suffered injuries; on the

other hand the local Police only watched and let the violence acts continued.

c. Act of intolerance from the vigilante mass was also end up in the stabbing of one of

HKPB congregation (which is Mr. Asia Lumbantoruan Sihombing), when the

congregations were walking together to Ciketing from Jl. Puyuh Raya 14, by one of

motorcycle-convoy members wearing whites who brushed past the congregation

group. Owing to this incident, the stabbing perpetrator was only punished with 6

months of imprisonment, lighter that the sanction of religion defamation indictment

and it did not cause sense of dismay.

43. The annulment of Construction Permit (IMB) committed by the Mayor of Depok against

HKBP Cinere through the Letter number 645.8/144/Kpts/Sos/Huk/2009. In fact the

planning process of the church construction has accomplished all the requirements as

stipulated in the Joint Decree and received recommendation from FKUB of Depok. The

withdrawal of construction permit was without any reason at all, except from the

pressure of certain groups in the name of Cinere Islamic Solidarity Forum. 30

Violation by the Government

44. Based on the cases of attack and forceful closing of worship houses in Indonesia, the level

of Government’s involvement can be categorized into two levels:

a) The Government actively or directly committing violation. In the cases mentioned

above, the Government systematically committed violations against freedom of

religion, practicing religion, and constructing worship house within various forms: (a)

annulling Church’s construction permit or not issuing Church’s construction permit;

(b) Police officers and the Government committing sealing off and or closing down of

church; (c) committing repressive actions to disperse the worship practiced by the

church congregation; (d) lack of concrete action from the central Government (Home

Minister) to handle the issue of worship house construction, particularly in relation

with regional Government. (e) The Government (Ministry of Religion, the Police)

even provide support for vigilante groups to perpetrate terror and violence.

b) The Government commits neglect; among other things are: (a) lack of anticipation or

prevention from the Police against the attack perpetrated by the vigilante; (b) there is

not any serious investigation process to prosecute the perpetrators both at police and

district attorney levels.

c) The central and regional Governments frequently conform to the wish of majority

religion groups. In the construction of worship house, although they have fulfilled the

stipulation of regulation, but since there is rejection from majority of population, the

Government instead obeys the wish of certain group although it is against the law.

The case of GKI Yasmin is the most recent one.

Recommendation

45. First recommendation, urging the Government to eliminate policy and practice of

discrimination in constructing worship house. Second, urging the Government to revise

the 2 Ministries Joint Decree concerning the permit of constructing worship house in

order to guarantee the rights of minority. Third, urging the Government to be consistent

to and obey the legislation applies and not abided by vigilante group.

C. INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY

46. Law enforcement practices toward the violence perpetrator based on religion and beliefs

are very dilapidate from the independency, impartiality, security guarantee of the

judiciary compare with the result of attack which experienced by the victim31

. These

valuations are based from the pattern which occurred all this time on the judiciary

processes. Those patterns are:

a. To let the practices of violence without making any legal acts even though the law

apparatus are among the violence. These occurred in many practices of violence

which the police are in place, know the perpetrator, well known the incident, but

they don’t make any legal action.

b. Receive the report/complaints from the victim but there is no follow up from the

police.32

c. Blurred the construction case with keep at the distance from the dimension of

religion/faith violence and even made a weak construction so the perpetrator only

got a light impendence punishment and sentenced for that.

d. Using weak articles of criminal, made a light charge which causing a light

sentence. This is not proportional with violates, losses, and the victim’s suffer. This

is happen in the judiciary process of Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cikeusik attack,33

and

Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cisalada attack,34

also the case of burning the churches in,

Central Java.35

e. Proving construction is not lead to the fundamental events.

f. Judges, Attorney, Police in the processes of judicial, are acts unprofessional,

dependent, and partial. This conditions are affected by the bias vision of the

religious and beliefs rights also there are pressure from the mass who done the

violence, directly in the court or indirectly.

47. As the result, there are three characters in the issue of independence of judiciary; First

to cause the law enforcement processes is not guarantee the fairness to the victims (ease

the perpretator). Second to cause the victim as a suspect.

Recommendation

48. First push the Indonesia Government to guarantee the independence of judiciary. Push

the Police Force, Attorney, and Judges to act professionally, independent, and impartial.

Second, push the Judicial Commission to monitors, evaluate, and taking legal acts

toward various dependent, partial and unprofessional of the judicial processes. Third,

push the Police Force and Attorney to taking acts of every police and prosecutor

apparatus which violate the principles of Independence of Judiciary. Fourth, push the

Indonesia Government to give a rehabilitation or other mechanism to recovering every

victim whom criminalized by the sentences.

D. RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY FOR MINORITY RELIGION/BELIEF

GROUPS

49. In relation with the right of individual identity for minority religion/belief groups, so far

the policy of Government of Indonesia is still discriminative. It is reflected in the service

of Population Administration, particularly in identity of religion/belief inside the ID card.

This act of discrimination also causes various forms of other violations.

50. Although Law No. 23/2006 concerning Population Administration (Adminduk) and

Government Regulation No. 37/2007 bring advancement in the fulfillment of rights of

faith believers’ right in comparison to the previous legislation policy, however there are

discrimination acts still happened, particularly concerning the right of personal identity

(ID Card and Family Card). One of the reasons is that Population Administration Law

still recognizes 6 (six) official religions in Indonesia, therefore the Law does not

acknowledge the existence of other religion or belief.

51. The form of discrimination against minority religion/belief is reflected in the writing of

religion column in ID Card. For the faith believers, the column of religion shall be filled

with (-) symbol and for the faith believers who refuse to write (-) symbol, the officer shall

impose them to choose one of official religions acknowledged by the Government. The

account for religion in the document also implicates on other discrimination in other

administration services, such as registration of marriage, birth certificate, funeral,

education, and even social relieve.

52. In the field of education, faith believers must search for schools that can accept their

existence, because more than administration problem, the children of faith believers are

forced to write counterfeit religion (according to one of 6 religions acknowledged in

Indonesia) to be able to enroll. Faith believers’ children also face trouble, which is the

absence of specific religion education for faith believers. The children are forced to

follow religion education according to the existing official religions, that is to say: Islam,

Christian, etc, while in reality religion education become one of subject incorporated in

the Final Exam of Graduation.

53. Other form of violation suffered by a faith believer who keeps his status of religion/belief

is when enrolling as government employee (PNS), police member or Indonesia national

army. In this case, the faith believer is considered as unable to fulfill administrative

requirement, because his religion/belief is not part of the official religions.36

54. The Government of Indonesia recently in the process of generating electronic ID card (E-

KTP) that happens to be national policy, but the policy still reflects discriminative

practice and when this E-KTP is applied, then the rehabilitation of victims’ identities shall

be more complicated and cause greater burden.

Recommendations

55. First, urging the Government of Indonesia to eliminate policy and practice of

discrimination. Second, revising of Law 23/2006 concerning Civil Administration and

Government Regulation No. 37/2007 to ensure the elimination of discrimination in the

legislation. Third, executing moratorium of e-KTP process until acknowledgement of

right of identity is realized. Fourth, conducting remedy of right of identity and effects of

violation caused by it.

1 Article 28 I of Indonesia Constitution

2 Article 42 and 43 Legislation concerning Child Protection

3 Article 56 line (1) of Legislation concerning Child Protection

4 Article 65 Legislation concerning Child Protection

5 Article 3 of Law PNPS/1965

6 Article 156a of Indonesia Penal Code stipulates: “Everyone is prohibited to tell, to advice, or to gather

public support deliberately in public to exercise interpretation concerning certain main religion in Indonesia or

commit religious activities resembling to the activities of the religion, interpretation and other activity which is

deviating from the main teachings of the religion”.

7 As an example the faith believers to One God Almighty is not under the cover of Ministry of Religion

of the Republic of Indonesia, but still under the scope of Ministry of Culture and Tourism, because politically

and strategically Indonesia has not acknowledged this groups as official religions.

8 As in various statements of Minister of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia – Suryadarma Ali – in

taking position toward many cases of Ahmadiyya.

9 Several other cases i.e. HB Jassin (1968) was penalized with (1) one year of imprisonment with two

years probation; Arswendo Atmowiloto (1990) was penalized with 5 years of imprisonment; Saleh (1996), was

punished with 5 (five) years in prison; Lia Eden & Abdurrahman Eden (2006 and 2008); Ardi Husein (2005),

Sumardin Tapayya (2005),

10 Setara Institute, The State Must Take Position: Three Years Report on the Situation of Freedom of

Religion/Belief in Indonesia 2007-2009, p. 20, 46 and 63.

11 Decision of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 140/PUU-VII/2009 in 2010;

12 Ahmadiyya had been existed in Indonesia since 1925 and has obtained status as an institution from

Indonesia Minister of Justice No. JA/5/23/13 dated on March 13th

, 1953, and listed in the Supplementary State

News of the Republic of Indonesia No.26 dated on March 31st, 1953.

13 Fatwa MUI 2005 Number: 11/MUNAS VII/MUI/15/2005 concerning Sect of Ahmadiyya

14 Joint Decree of Minister of Religion (No. 3 of 2008), Attorney-General (No. Kep-003/A/JA/6/2008),

and Home Minister of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 199 of 2008) concerning Warning and Instruction for

Believers, Members and/or Board Members of Indonesia Ahmadiyya Congregation (JAI) and Members of the

Society.

15 Since 2008 to March 2011, 21 regional policies have been recorded. See Annex 1.

16 Form of other violation such as destruction of property, criminalization, teacher repositioning, etc.

2007–2009 Setara Institute Report, The State Must Take Position: Three Years Report on the Situation of

Freedom of Religion/Belief in Indonesia, (Jakarta: Pustaka Masyarakat Setara, 2010), p. 14; and 2010 Setara

Institute Report, The State Denies: Situation of Freedom of Religion in 2010, (Jakarta: Pustaka Masyarakat

Setara, 2011), p. 25

17 The demolition was anchored in a letter No. 300/448-Sekr, concerning the Plan of Termination of

Construction Activity of Religious Infrastructure of Ahmadiyya Congregation in Cisalada dated on July 9th

,

2010, signed by Head of Ciampea Sub-district - Budi Lukmanul Hakim

18 Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,

Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan (Thematic Review), Setara Institute, August 9th,

2010.

19 The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of Religion/Belief and Tolerance, (Jakarta: Wahid

Institute, December 2010), p. 62.

20 Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,

Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan, p. 5

21

Setara Institute, In the name of Order and Security: Persecution against Ahmadiyya in Bogor, Garut,

Tasikmalaya, and Kuningan, p. 6; see also, Wahid Institute, The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of

Religion/Belief and Tolerance, 39

22 Wahid Institute, The Wahid Institute, 2010 Report on Freedom of Religion/Belief and Tolerance, 43

23 “Report of Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation’s Cases in 2011”, it is not published

24 At High Administrative Court, the GKI Yasmin party won the lawsuit of Church construction permit.

Due to this decision, the Government of Bogor City appealed for a Review at Supreme Court level and still won

by GKI Yasmin.

25 Joint Decree of Minister of Religion and Home Minister No. 09 of 2006 and number 8 of 2006 on the

Implementation of Head of Region’s Duty in Keeping the Harmony of Religious Communities, Empowerment

the Forum of Communication of Religious Communities and the Establishment of Worship House

26 Article 14 of 2 Ministries Joint Decree

27 Report of Wahid Institute, Annual Report of The Wahid Institute 2008: Tracking a Nation that

Becomes Fractured, (Jakarta: Wahid Institute, December 2008), p. 53.

28 The sealing was executed by Government of Bekasi City twice, on March 1

st, 2010 The Urban

Planning and Monitoring of Bekasi City and on June 20th

, 2010, the sealing was executed based on a letter of

Instruction from mayor of Bekasi, Moctar Mohamad Number: 800/1383-P2B/VI/2010, dated on June 17th

, 2010

29 According to report from HKBP Ciketing, the mass assemblage comprising approximately 50s people

are coming every time HKBP Congregation practiced worship, including on the celebration of holiday such as

Christmas, along with shouting words: “Dog, Pig, Christian, Infidel” From the banner brought by them and

short text messages distributed before the mass action were perpetrated on June 20th

and July 17th

, 2011, The

identified attacker groups are from the Forum of Islamic Community of Bekasi and Front of Islamic Defender

(FPI) of Bantar Gebang.

30 Wahid Institute, Monthly report on religious issues IX edition, April 2009

31 See Paragraph 33.

32 For instance; attack against Ahmadiyya Jamaa in Cisalada District, Bogor. More comprehensive report

is in the UPR for Freedom of Religion in Indonesia.

33 In the trial processes of Ahmadiyya Jamaa Cikeusik chapter which cause three people from Ahmadiyya

are brutally killed, twelve people from the attacker with the prejudgement of doing the attack by the

overwhelming number (Article 170 of Penal Code), cruel treatment (Article 160 of Penal Code), participate in

the attack (Article 358 of Penal Code), sentenced in prison for only 3 up to 6 months. While the victim from

Ahmadiyya Jamaa, Deden Sudjana, who was charged with the Article of light cruel treatment (Article 351 of

Penal Code), Incitement (Article 160 of Penal Code), and acting against the official (Article 212 of Penal Code),

was sentenced in prison for nine months. Moreover, Deden Sudjana was presented as an a de charge witness in

trial court of Adam Damini bin Armad, one of the defendant who done the attack. salahseorang terdakwa yang

melakukan penyerangan. Surprisingly, in that examination, the judges was not digging out the information

regarding to the participation of Adam Damini bin Armad in the incident of attack against Ahmadiyya Jamaa in

Cikeusik. Instead, the judges always questioning about the witness’s faith as a member of Ahmadiyya Jamaa.

34 In the judiciary process of the attack against Ahmadiyya in Cisalada Distric, Bogor, three persons from

the mass was sentenced in prison for four up to six months with the probation period for eight months up to one

year. Meanwhile, one person from the victim was sentenced for one year four months in prison without any

probation period. Besides, the Judges seems to be partial in prosecute that case. In the examination of witnesses,

the Judges were push the witness with the questions about his religion/belief. In other side, eventhough the

impedance sentences to the perpetator are up to five years in prison, but in practices the public prosecutor only

claim the low imprisonment of ten months in prison with one year probation.

35 8th February 2011, two days after the attack against Ahmadiyya in Cikeusik, there are not less than 2

churches in Temanggung, Central Java were burnt by the mob. The churches were burnt are Bethel Chruch and

Pantekosta Chruch (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/09/angry-crowds-destroy-three-churches-c-

java.html). This action triggered by the five years in prison verdict of Anthonius Richmord Bawengan because

he was prooved in doing the religious blasphemy. But in the other side, the verdict to the perpetators of burning

churches were only charge for one year in prison.

36 The report is based on the Report made by HRWG, MADIA, HPK, BKOK, “Demanding the

Fulfillment of Constitutional Rights of Faith Believers to One God Almighty”, (Jakarta: HRWG, 2010).