IPW: Pasal Penghinaan Presiden Hanya Bikin Repot Polri
Indonesia Police Watch Opposed to Defamation Articles on President
Reporter : Rusdi Kamal
Editor : Cahyani Harzi
Translator : Dhelia Gani
Jakarta (B2B) - Indonesia Police Watch (IPW) menilai, pasal penghinaan terhadap presiden tidak perlu dimasukkan ke dalam KUHP. Alasan pertama, pasal itu sudah dicabut Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dan alasan kedua, bila pasal itu diberlakukan, maka sama saja dengan mengistimewakan presiden padahal tiap warga negara, termasuk presiden memiliki kedudukan yang sama di mata hukum.
"Posisi warga negara sama di depan hukum sehingga presiden tidak pantas diistimewakan secara hukum. Memberi keistimewaan hukum pada presiden sama artinya mendiskriminasi rakyat dan hukum itu sendiri," kata Ketua Presidium IPW, Neta S Pane melalui pernyataan tertulisnya yang diterima B2B di Jakarta pada Minggu.
Menurutnya, bahwa pasal yang mengatur perkara penghinaan dan pencemaran nama baik sudah tercantum dalam KUHP. Karena itu, pasal penghinaan terhadap presiden tidak perlu ada.
"Jika merasa dihina, presiden bisa melapor ke polisi dengan menggunakan pasal penghinaan dan pencemaran nama baik, sama seperti kasus Hakim Sarpin yang melaporkan dua komisioner Komisi Yudisial dengan tuduhan penghinaan dan pencemaran nama baik," katanya.
Sebelumnya, Presiden Joko Widodo mengajukan 786 Pasal dalam Rancangan Undang-Undang (RUU) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) ke DPR RI untuk disetujui menjadi UU KUHP.
Dari ratusan pasal yang diajukan itu, Presiden Jokowi menyelipkan satu pasal mengenai penghinaan presiden dan wakil presiden.
Pasal tersebut sebenarnya sudah dihapuskan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) sejak 2006.
Pasal tersebut tercantum dalam Pasal 263 Ayat (1) RUU KUHP yang berbunyi: "Setiap orang yang di muka umum menghina Presiden atau Wakil Presiden, dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 5 tahun atau pidana denda paling banyak Kategori IV".
Jakarta (B2B) - The Indonesia Police Watch (IPW) said the government should not include the defamation articles on President into the Criminal Code (KUHP).
"There are two reasons for the IPW to reject the implementation of the defamation articles. The first is that the articles have been scrapped by the Constitutional Court (MK)," IPW Presidium Chairman Neta S Pane said here on Sunday.
The second reason, he said, is that if the articles are implemented, it will discriminate citizens. Before the law, all citizens, including the President are equal.
"The position of all citizens are equal before the law so that it is not appropriate to give a legal privilege to the president. Giving a legal privilege to the president is equal to discriminating citizens and the law itself," Pane said.
He said there had been articles on defamation and insult in the Criminal Code. So, there is no need to implement a defamation article on President.
"If the President feels he or she is insulted, he or she can use the existing defamation articles that have been stipulated in the KUHP. This has been used by Judge Sarpin who sued Judicial Commission (KY) judges on charges of insult and defamation," Pane added.
The government is seeking to re-introduce criminal charges for insulting the president in the draft of a Criminal Code (KUHP) amendment, a provision that had been annulled by the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court scrapped three articles on insulting the president from the KUHP in 2006, but a person can still be charged for defamation if someone files a report against that person, as stipulated in articles 310 and 311.
Article 263 paragraph 1 of the draft bill says that a person might face a maximum of five years imprisonment for insulting the president or the vice president.
In addition, the article also stipulates that a criminal charge is not applicable for criticism or self-defense.
The proposed article 264 stipulates that a person who distributes or displays writing or imagery defaming the president in public may also face a five-year term of imprisonment.
In the 2006 ruling, the Constitutional Court almost unanimously ruled that the three articles in the KUHP - articles 134, 136 and 137 - undermined the right to freedom of speech mandated by the Constitution and caused uncertainty, as those articles were subject to multiple interpretations.
