Ahok's blasphemy case unfolds very rapidly. It even leads to a legal case. Not only that, the case had also triggered a mass protest ending up with a small riot on 4 November 2016.
In fact, Ahok had personally come to Police Criminal Investigation Department(Bareskrim) Police Headquarter to give statement as a witness, before November 4 protest occurred. He even had apologized for his "blundered" statement regarding the Al Maidah 51 in an event in Thousand Islands.
However, Ahok's "maneuver" was not able to dampen the anger of Muslims who have been bursting, leading to the demand for Ahok prosecution from some religious mass organizations and some NGOs or student activists.
President Jokowi himself had given directions to his staff to prosecute the case of alleged blasphemy involving Ahok in transparent and open manner in order to create legal certainty and finally candetermine whether the plan of Aksi Bela Islam (ABI) III will occur.
The reference to conduct open public case screening is provided in Article 71 of the Police Regulation No. 14/2012 on the Management of Crime Investigation. The plan for investigation was indeed controversial.
Those who are pro assessed that Jokowi's policy to process Ahok openly actually indicate that the government wants to be neutral and will not interfere this case.
Open investigation is the way the Police institution ward off public doubts over the independence of the police in this case and it does not violate the law. Police plan to expose the case of alleged blasphemy involving Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok is a form of transparency of the police in handling the case so that it can be witnessed by all people.
Therefore, the original video and original transcripts should be aired openly and being studied together involvingexpert witnesses in language, religious affairs, criminal law, and others. The result will conclude whether Ahok's statement contains elements of a criminal offense of blasphemy or not. All parties must accept the results as the fairest law.
The group who are opposing the open public case screening assessed that such process will complicate the decision making process of the Police. In fact, it will only become an "entertainment".
This open public case screening would be a bad precedent in the future. The parties who are in legal process may require the President to open the investigation of his case. Should this case be open, the presence of the complainants, religious leaders, and other interested parties is enough without the need to broadcast live to the public. Groups that do not agree assessed that this open public case screening is not recognized in the CriminalCode Procedure (KUHAP). This is an internal procedure being set independently by the law enforcement agency.
Setara Research Institute Director, Ismail Hasani, hopes that thispublic case screening is not debated. It is part of the performance of the police in the investigation.
Actually, at this stage of the investigation, there is no legal basis for the public case screening, even though the police frequently does it. Thus, it does not need to be a debate.Public case screeningis just a working technique of the investigators in determining whether or not the alleged crime exists.
Therefore, according to Ismail, it is not right to still make it a controversy. Ahok seems to be "judged" freely by some people. Public case creeningwill prove the allegations.
The public case screeningwill later only involve the relevant elements such as the complainant, reported one, investigators, and the investigation watchdog (Wasidik) of Polri. The plan to involve Commission III members is erroneous because the Commission III is not the investigator nor law enforcement body.
The oversight function of the parliament is to monitor government in running the mandatesof legislation, not to oversee specific cases. The involvement of Commission III will only invite further potential politicization and undermine the independence of the investigators.
Respect the Result
In the latest development, the open public case screening over alleged blasphemy case involving Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama alias Ahok was not broadcasted live by the mass media. This was conveyed by Head of Public Relations Division, Inspector General Boy Rafli Amar. The screening was also monitored by the National Police Commision, Attorney General, and the Parliament. The minutes of the screening will be open for public.
Any mechanisms adopted by Polri to resolve Ahok caseshould be appreciated and the resultsmust be respected.The government is also aware that that the professionalism of law enforcement officers is tested in this case. In addition, in this case, the rule of law and legal reform in Indonesia are also at stake.
Polri's decision not to broadcast Ahok caseliveon TV will disappoint the anti-Ahok group.What is being feared is that the group will not accept nor respect the outcome or decision, so that they will politicize this issue.
Related to this, I think the authorities should take persuasive approach to many key figures from both the pros and cons in this Ahok case.
In addition, many people are also worried about the final outcome of Ahok case that will determine whether or not the situation heats up nationwide, especially becausethere have been rumors that there is a plan to conduct ABI III rally on 25 November 2016.
I just want to remind everybody that the 25 November protest is not necessary because it will only worsen the nation harmony and disturb people unity that we have built with tears and blood together.
*) The author is an alumni of Udayana University, Bali.
COPYRIGHT © ANTARA News Megapolitan 2016
In fact, Ahok had personally come to Police Criminal Investigation Department(Bareskrim) Police Headquarter to give statement as a witness, before November 4 protest occurred. He even had apologized for his "blundered" statement regarding the Al Maidah 51 in an event in Thousand Islands.
However, Ahok's "maneuver" was not able to dampen the anger of Muslims who have been bursting, leading to the demand for Ahok prosecution from some religious mass organizations and some NGOs or student activists.
President Jokowi himself had given directions to his staff to prosecute the case of alleged blasphemy involving Ahok in transparent and open manner in order to create legal certainty and finally candetermine whether the plan of Aksi Bela Islam (ABI) III will occur.
The reference to conduct open public case screening is provided in Article 71 of the Police Regulation No. 14/2012 on the Management of Crime Investigation. The plan for investigation was indeed controversial.
Those who are pro assessed that Jokowi's policy to process Ahok openly actually indicate that the government wants to be neutral and will not interfere this case.
Open investigation is the way the Police institution ward off public doubts over the independence of the police in this case and it does not violate the law. Police plan to expose the case of alleged blasphemy involving Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok is a form of transparency of the police in handling the case so that it can be witnessed by all people.
Therefore, the original video and original transcripts should be aired openly and being studied together involvingexpert witnesses in language, religious affairs, criminal law, and others. The result will conclude whether Ahok's statement contains elements of a criminal offense of blasphemy or not. All parties must accept the results as the fairest law.
The group who are opposing the open public case screening assessed that such process will complicate the decision making process of the Police. In fact, it will only become an "entertainment".
This open public case screening would be a bad precedent in the future. The parties who are in legal process may require the President to open the investigation of his case. Should this case be open, the presence of the complainants, religious leaders, and other interested parties is enough without the need to broadcast live to the public. Groups that do not agree assessed that this open public case screening is not recognized in the CriminalCode Procedure (KUHAP). This is an internal procedure being set independently by the law enforcement agency.
Setara Research Institute Director, Ismail Hasani, hopes that thispublic case screening is not debated. It is part of the performance of the police in the investigation.
Actually, at this stage of the investigation, there is no legal basis for the public case screening, even though the police frequently does it. Thus, it does not need to be a debate.Public case screeningis just a working technique of the investigators in determining whether or not the alleged crime exists.
Therefore, according to Ismail, it is not right to still make it a controversy. Ahok seems to be "judged" freely by some people. Public case creeningwill prove the allegations.
The public case screeningwill later only involve the relevant elements such as the complainant, reported one, investigators, and the investigation watchdog (Wasidik) of Polri. The plan to involve Commission III members is erroneous because the Commission III is not the investigator nor law enforcement body.
The oversight function of the parliament is to monitor government in running the mandatesof legislation, not to oversee specific cases. The involvement of Commission III will only invite further potential politicization and undermine the independence of the investigators.
Respect the Result
In the latest development, the open public case screening over alleged blasphemy case involving Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama alias Ahok was not broadcasted live by the mass media. This was conveyed by Head of Public Relations Division, Inspector General Boy Rafli Amar. The screening was also monitored by the National Police Commision, Attorney General, and the Parliament. The minutes of the screening will be open for public.
Any mechanisms adopted by Polri to resolve Ahok caseshould be appreciated and the resultsmust be respected.The government is also aware that that the professionalism of law enforcement officers is tested in this case. In addition, in this case, the rule of law and legal reform in Indonesia are also at stake.
Polri's decision not to broadcast Ahok caseliveon TV will disappoint the anti-Ahok group.What is being feared is that the group will not accept nor respect the outcome or decision, so that they will politicize this issue.
Related to this, I think the authorities should take persuasive approach to many key figures from both the pros and cons in this Ahok case.
In addition, many people are also worried about the final outcome of Ahok case that will determine whether or not the situation heats up nationwide, especially becausethere have been rumors that there is a plan to conduct ABI III rally on 25 November 2016.
I just want to remind everybody that the 25 November protest is not necessary because it will only worsen the nation harmony and disturb people unity that we have built with tears and blood together.
*) The author is an alumni of Udayana University, Bali.
Editor : M. Tohamaksun
COPYRIGHT © ANTARA News Megapolitan 2016