•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that must be protected in a democratic society. However, there is an alarming problem in many countries where governments limit freedom of speech by targeting people espousing views contrary to those of the government. Many free speech cases handled by the Constitutional Courts of Indonesia and Korea demonstrate a gradual decline in the quality of democracy there. This article aims to assess the extent to which the Constitutional Courts’ role and responsibilities contribute to the protection of freedom of speech. Through its decisions, the Constitutional Courts in those two countries have contributed to institutionalizing freedom of speech as a permanent fixture of democracy by keeping the state institutions transparent and making the state responsive to public opinion and criticism. Although freedom of speech is not an absolute right and can be limited, the limitation should be done only under strict conditions, where it is required and proportionate. When dealing with freedom of speech cases in any future judgments, the Constitutional Courts should consider the proportionality test against State arguments. This method would allow the Courts to determine the limitation in freedom of speech cases.

Bahasa Abstract

Kebebasan berbicara merupakan hak konstitusional warga negara yang harus dilindungi oleh masyarakat yang demokratis. Namun demikian, saat ini terdapat masalah yang mengkhawatirkan di banyak negara, di mana pemerintah secara tidak adil membatasi kebebasan berbicara, seperti menangkap orang-orang yang memiliki pandangan berbeda dengan pemerintah. Kasus-kasus kebebasan berpendapat yang telah ditangani oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Indonesia dan Korea menunjukkan bahwa terdapat penurunan kualitas demokrasi secara bertahap di kedua negara tersebut. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang sejauh mana peran Mahkamah Konstitusi berkontribusi dalam melindungi kebebasan berbicara di Indonesia dan Korea? Melalui putusannya, Mahkamah Konstitusi Indonesia dan Korea telah berkontribusi dalam melembagakan kebebasan berbicara sebagai instrumen penting demokrasi, dengan cara menjaga agar lembaga negara bersikap transparan dan membuat mereka responsif terhadap opini dan kritik publik. Meskipun kebebasan berbicara bukan merupakan hak yang absolut dan dapat dibatasi, pembatasan tersebut harus dilakukan dengan pertimbangan yang ketat dan secara proporsional. Ketika Mahkamah Konstitusi menangani kasus kebebasan berbicara di masa yang akan datang. Mahkamah Konstitusi harus mempertimbangkan uji proporsionalitas terhadap argumen Negara. Metode ini dapat memungkinkan Mahkamah dalam menentukan batasan dalam kasus kebebasan berbicara.

References

Books

Chen, Albert H.Y. “Constitutional Courts in Asia: Western Origins and Asian Practice” in Constitutional Courts in Asia: A

Comparative Perspective. Edited by Albert H.Y. Chen and Andrew Harding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. 1-31.

Constitutional Court of Korea. “Panel Discussion Questionnaire” in Comparative Constitutional Law Society of the Constitutional Court of Korea.” Edited by Constitutional Court of Korea. Seoul: Constitutional Court of Korea, 19 June 2018. Pp. 3-7.

Ginsburg, Tom and Aziz Z. Huq. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.

Journal Articles

Chakim, M. Lutfi. "A Comparative Perspective on Constitutional Complaint: Discussing Models, Procedures, and Decisions." Constitutional Review Journal 5 no. 1 (2019): 96-133.

Haggard, Stephan and Jong-Sung You. "Freedom of Expression in South Korea." Journal of Contemporary Asia 45 no. 1 (2014): 1-13.

Faiz, Pan M. "The Protection of Civil and Political Rights by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia." Indonesia Law Review 6 (2016): 159-179.

Howie, Emily. "Protecting the Human Right to Freedom of Expression in International Law." International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 20 no. 1 (2018): 12-15.

Horowitz, Donald L. "Constitutional Courts: A Primer for Decision Makers." Journal of Democracy 17 no. 4 (2006): 125-137.

Huq, Aziz Z., and Tom Ginsburg. "How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy." UCLA Law Review 65 no. 1 (2018): 78-169.

Mietzner, Marcus. "Authoritarian Innovations in Indonesia: Electoral Narrowing, Identity Politics and Executive Illiberalism." Democratization (2019): 1-16.

Palguna, I Dewa Gede. “Constitutional Complaint and the Protection of Citizens the Constitutional Rights,” Constitutional Review 3 (2017): 1-23.

Youm, Kyu Ho. “The Constitutional Court and Freedom of Expression.” Journal of Korean Law 1 (2001): 37-70.

Youm, Kyu Ho. "Freedom of Expression and the Law: Rights and Responsibilities in South Korea (Expressive Rights in the Information Age)." Stanford Journal of International Law 38 no. 1 (2002): 123-151.

Legal Documents

Indonesia. The Indonesian Constitution.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). New York, 16 December 1966. United Nations Treaty.

Korea. The Korean Constitution.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). Paris,10 December 1948.

Cases

Constitutional Court of Indonesia, “Decision No. 013/PUU-IV/2006.”

Constitutional Court of Indonesia, “Decision No. 6/PUU-V/2007.”

Constitutional Court of Indonesia, “Decision No. 16/ PUU-XVI/2018.”

Constitutional Court of Indonesia, “Decision No. 013/PUU-IV/2006.”

Constitutional Court of Indonesia, “Decision No. 14/PUU-VI/2008.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 15-2(B) KCCR 41, 2000 Hun-Ba 67.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 17-2 KCCR 360, 2004 Hun-Ka 17.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 2018Hun-Ba137.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 2006Hun-Ba20.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 2013Hun-Ba322.”

Constitutional Court of Korea, “Decision No. 2010 Hun-Ka2, 13 (consolidated).”

Website

Soesetyo, Wasis. “Guarding Constitution through the Court.” http://www.ialsnet.org/meetings/constit/papers/SusetioWasis(Indonesia).pdf. Accessed 1 August 2019.

Download

Share

COinS