•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Engulfed in a constant ideological challenge from various societal organizations, Indonesia inflicts an ideological curtailment measure as an attempt to defend the reign of its state ideology, Pancasila. To this end, societal organization is barred to actively adopt, develop, and spread any teaching or idea which contradicts Pancasila. From international law standpoint, assertion over the measure’s incompatibility with human rights norms emerges. Although, a portion of the justification conveyed by the Government of Indonesia did stipulate a reference to international human rights law regime by virtue of the invocation of state of emergency and a presumably regional norm, such defence is shaky at best when being confronted with the temporal nature of state of emergency and the high threshold to ascertain a regional customary international law. This Article, therefore, proposes an alternative defence for such curtailment measure from international law perspective. In doing so, this Article will first delve to pinpoint the ideological issue within the corpus of international law. Subsequently, by navigating through international conventions and jurisprudences, it will establish conceivable justifications for Indonesia’s ideological curtailment. Finally, this Article will also observe the looming challenges and opportunities as Indonesia embraces a restrictive approach to societal organization existing under its jurisdiction.

Bahasa Abstract

Dilanda tantangan ideologis dari berbagai organisasi kemasyarakatan secara terus menerus, Indonesia menerapkan langkah pembatasan ideologi sebagai salah satu cara mempertahankan supremasi ideologi negara, Pancasila. Dalam hal ini, organisasi kemasyarakatan dilarang untuk secara aktif menganut, mengembangkan, serta menyebarkan ajaran atau paham yang bertentangan dengan Pancasila. Dari perspektif hukum internasional, argumentasi terkait ketidaksesuaian larangan tersebut dengan norma hak asasi manusia pun mengemuka. Meskipun justifikasi dari Pemerintah Indonesia turut merujuk pada rezim hukum hak asasi manusia international melalui penggunaan konsep keadaan darurat dan norma regional yang diasumsikan telah terbentuk, argumen tersebut goyah bila dihadapkan dengan karakteristik temporer dari keadaan darurat dan parameter yang tinggi untuk memastikan sudah terbentuknya hukum kebiasaan internasional di tingkat regional. Artikel ini oleh karenanya, menawarkan argumentasi pembelaan altenatif terkait langkah pembatasan tersebut dari perspektif hukum internasional. Terkait hal tersebut, Artikel ini pertama akan memetakan letak isu ideologi dalam kerangka hukum internasional. Kemudian, dengan menelusuri pelbagai konvensi dan putusan internasional, Artikel ini akan menjabarkan justifikasi terkait pembatasan ideologi di Indonesia. Terakhir, Artikel ini juga akan mencermati tantangan dan kesempatan yang ada dari pendekatan restriktif yang diambil Indonesia terhadap organisasi kemasyarakatan yang berada di bawah yurisdiksi Indonesia.

References

Conventions and Legislations

Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, ETS 5 (4 November 1950).

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3.

Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San Jose", Costa Rica, (22 November 1969).

Decision of the Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia Number XXV/MPRS/1966 of 1966.

Government of Indonesia Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2017 regarding the Amendment of Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Societal Organization.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 16 of 2017 regarding the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2017 regarding the Amendment of Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Societal Organization as a Law.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2013 regarding Societal Organization.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 2011 regarding Legislation Making.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 2005 regarding the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1986 regarding State Administrative Court, along with its subsequent amending law in Law Number 9 of 2004.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2003 regarding Constitutional Court, along with its subsequent amending laws in Law Number 8 of 2011, Law Number 4 of 2014, and Law Number 7 of 2020.

Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945.

Consolidation of the Canadian Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa no. 108 of 1996.

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany of 1949.

Constitution of the Republic of Korea, 1987.

Judgments

Constitutional Court of South Africa, Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another, Judgment of Case CCT CCT 201/19 (November 2020).

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Judgment of the Case Number 2/PUU-XVI/2018 (May 2019).

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Judgment of the Case Number 140/PUU-VII/2009 (April 2010).

European Court of Human Rights, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Judgment of Application no. 12945/87 (December 1992).

European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of Application no. 5493/72 (December 1976).

European Court of Human Rights, Klass and Others v. Germany, Judgment of Application no. 5029/71 (September 1978).

European Court of Human Rights, Leander v. Sweden, Judgment of Application no. 9248/81 (March 1987).

European Court of Human Rights, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Judgment of Application no. 13470/87 (September 1994).

European Court of Human Rights, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, Judgment of Application nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94 (July 1999).

European Court of Human Rights, Zana v. Turkey, Judgment of Application no. 69/1996/688/880 (November 1997).

International Court of Justice, "Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case,” (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of November 20th, 1950, I.C.J. Rep. 1950 p.266 (1950).

International Court of Justice, “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua.” (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 14 (1986).

Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Keegstra, 3 SCR 697 (December 1990).

Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Judgment of the Case Number 27 K/TUN/2019 (February 2019).

Books and Articles

Arizona, Yance "The Return of Pancasila: Political and Legal Rhetoric against Transnational Islamist Imposition." Constitutional Review 5, no. 1 (May 2019): 164-193.

Bachmann, Klaus et al., “The Puzzle of Punitive Memory Laws: New Insights into the Origins and Scope of Punitive Memory Laws.” East European Politics and Societies 35, no. 4 (November 2021): 996–1012.

Bedi, Shiv R. S., The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.

Black, H. Campbell, "Principle of Stare Decisis." The American Law Register 34, no. 12 (1886): 745-757.

Cai, Congyan, "Enforcing a New national Security - China's National Security Law and International Law." Journal of East Asia and International Law 10, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 65-90.

Dastyari, Azadeh, "Vitalising International Human Rights Law as Legal Authority: Freedom of Expression Enjoyed by Australian Public Servants and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." University of New South Wales Law Journal 43, no. 3 (September 2020): 827-849.

Gerring, John, “Ideology: A Definitional Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 50, no. 4 (December 1997): 957–994.

Ghantous, Marie, “Ordre Public Protection as Legitimate Aim for Freedom of Expression Restriction in the International Legal Order.” Quebec Journal of International Law 31, no. 1 (2018): 243-266.

Guzman, Andrew T., Timothy L. Meyer, "International Soft Law." Journal of Legal Analysis 2, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 171-225.

Hannum, Hurst, "The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law." Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 25, no. Issues 1 & 2 (1995/1996): 287-397.

Kennedy, David, "One, Two, Three, Many Legal Orders: Legal Pluralism and the Cosmopolitan Dream." New York University Review of Law & Social Change 31, no. 3 (2007): 641-660.

Kim, Sung Ho, "Constitutional Revolution Redux: Postwar Japan and South Korea." Yonsei Law Journal 10 (2020): 83-114.

Lee, Whiejin, “The Enforcement of Human Rights Treaties in Korean Courts.” Asian Yearbook of International Law 23 (2017): 95–136.

Mcgoldrick, Dominic, “A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2016): 21–60.

O'Flaherty, Michael, "Freedom of Expression: Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No 34." Human Rights Law Review 12, no. 4 (2012): 627-654.

Pound, Roscoe, “Social Problems and the Courts.” American Journal of Sociology 18, no. 3 (1912): 331–341.

Pound, Roscoe, “Theories of Law.” The Yale Law Journal 22, no. 2 (1912): 114–150

Prawiranegara, Sjafruddin, “Pancasila as the Sole Foundation.” Indonesia, no. 38 (1984): 74-83.

Robbins, Melissa, "Powerful States, Customary Law and the Erosion of Human Rights through Regional Enforcement." California Western International Law Journal 35, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 275-302.

Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Benjamin Billa, "Treaties and National Security." New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 40, no. 2 (Winter 2008): 437-496.

Shin, Kwang-Yeong, “The Trajectory of Anti-Communism in South Korea.” Asian Journal of German and European Studies 2, no. 3 (2017).

Simmons, Beth A., Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.,

Sweeney, James A., “Margins of Appreciation: Cultural Relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 2 (2005): 459–474.

Weiss, David E., "Striking a Difficult Balance: Combatting the Threat of Neo-Nazism in Germany While Preserving Individual Liberties." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 27, no. 4 (November 1994): 899-940.

United Nations Documents

UN Doc. A/HRC/31/18, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (23 December 2015).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, General Comment on Article 4 (2001).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/33/D/236/1987, V. M. R. B. v. Canada, Communication no. 236/1987 (18 July 1988).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995, Tae-Hoon Park v. Republic of Korea, Communication no. 628/1995 (20 October 1998)

UN Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997, Malcolm Ross v. Canada, Communication No. 736/1997 (26 October 2000).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000, Shin Hak Chul v. Republic of Korea, Communication no. 926/2000 (16 March 2004).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002, Marques de Morais v. Angola, Communication no. 1128/2002 (29 March 2005).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/84/D/1119/2002, Jeong-Eun Lee v. Republic of Korea, Communication no. 1119/2002 (23 August 2005).

UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, General Comment on Article 19 (2011).

UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4. the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (28 September 1984).

Website Contents

United Nations Treaty Body Database, “Acceptance of Individual Complaints Procedures for Indonesia,” accessed May 29, 2022, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=80&Lang=EN.

United Nations Treaty Collection, “Status of Treaties: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” accessed May 28, 2022, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND.

Download

Share

COinS