id  Bahasa Indonesia  
en  English  
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
No Data Found
No Data Found
Domisili
:
Pekerjaan
:
Pasal
:
Narasi :
 1/10 
show story
Pasal Karet UU ITE
ITE Law’s Malleable Terms

Sejoli Pembungkam Kritik

The Tale of Suppressive Twins


November ini, tiga tahun Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE) direvisi. Namun, masih banyak kekurangan dari aturan tersebut. Koalisi masyarakat sipil pun menggaungkan lagi wacana revisi UU ITE. Mereka mendesak pasal pencemaran nama baik dan ujaran kebencian dihapus.


Bersama SafeNet dan Paku ITE, yang sudah mengadvokasi ratusan korban, kami mengangkat cerita orang-orang yang terjerat pasal pencemaran nama baik dan ujaran kebencian dalam UU ITE.


klik di sini
untuk melihat siapa saja yang dibungkam

November marks the exact third-year the Information and Electronic Transactions Law (ITE Law) underwent major revision. However, the law continues to expose its drawbacks. This prompted the civil society coalition demanding yet another revision, prompting for the Law’s article on defamation and blasphemy to be dropped entirely.


Together with two prominent legal advocacy groups, SafeNet and Paku ITE, Tempo tries to highlight the stories of common people prosecuted under ITE Law’s defamation and blasphemy articles.


click here
to see the people silenced by the law

LIMA tahun lalu, Muhammad Arsyad memutuskan meninggalkan kampung halamannya di Makassar setelah ia terjerat Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE). “Saya sempat depresi selama dipenjara dan keluarga juga tertekan,” kata Arsyad menceritakan ulang kisahnya itu pada Kamis, 24 Oktober 2019.

Aktivis antikorupsi di Makassar ini menjadi tersangka dalam kasus pencemaran nama baik atas laporan yang dimasukkan Wahab Tahir pada 9 Juli 2013. Pengurus Golkar Makassar itu menuding Arsyad telah menghina politikus senior Golkar, Nurdin Halid. Pangkal laporan ini adalah status Arsyad di BlackBerry yang berbunyi, “No fear Ancaman Nurdin Halid Koruptor!!! Jangan Pilih Adik Koruptor.”

Pengakuan para korban UU ITE - TEMPO

Persis dua bulan setelah laporan itu, Kepolisian Daerah Sulawesi Selatan menetapkan Arsyad sebagai tersangka. Polisi pun menahan Arsyad. Sebab, kala itu UU ITE belum direvisi. Berdasarkan beleid lama aturan ini, ancaman hukuman untuk pelaku yang terjerat pasal penghinaan nama baik adalah enam tahun.

Perkara Arsyad melaju mulus sampai ke pengadilan. Dalam pembacaan tuntutan, Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar meminta majelis hakim menghukum Arsyad tujuh bulan penjara karena terbukti mencemarkan nama baik Nurdin Halid.

grafis tempo
Grafis Perjalanan Revisi UU ITE - TEMPO

Beruntung, Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Makassar membebaskan Arsyad pada 28 Mei 2014. “Tidak terbukti secara sah melakukan tindak pidana sesuai dengan tuntutan Jaksa maka harus dibebaskan dari segala tuntutan jaksa. Dan majelis Hakim memerintahkan supaya Arsyad dibebaskan dan segera dikeluarkan dari tahanan,” ujar majelis seperti dikutip Safenetvoice.org.

Arsyad bebas. Namun, kata dia, kehidupannya susah. “Menyandang status pernah masuk penjara saya kesulitan mendapat kerja,” kata dia. Keluarga pun memutuskan menjual rumah yang ada di Makassar dan pindah ke pinggiran Sulawesi Selatan. Sementara itu, Arsyad merantau ke Ibu Kota.

Sempat menjadi staf ahli anggota DPR, Arsyad kemudian mengambil lisensi sebagai pengacara. Sekarang, Arsyad merupakan Koordinator Paguyuban Korban UU ITE (Paku ITE). Ia fokus mengadvokasi orang-orang yang terjerat Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.

Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFENet) Indonesia mencatat ada 381 kasus UU ITE sepanjang 2011 sampai 2019 yang menjerat baik perorangan maupun institusi. “Angka ini bisa lebih besar, karena kami hanya mencatat yang terpantau di media massa dan aduan,” kata Koordinator SAFENet Indonesia, Damar Juniarto kepada Tempo, Jumat, 15 November 2019. SafeNet adalah organisasi nirlaba yang fokus pada perlindungan kebebasan berekspresi di dunia maya.

Menurut Damar, jika merujuk pada situs registrasi Mahkamah Agung, ada 508 perkara di pengadilan yang menggunakan UU ITE sepanjang 2011-2018. Ia mengatakan kasus paling besar terjadi pada 2018 yaitu 292 perkara. Angka ini meningkat dibanding tahun 2017, sebanyak 140 kasus. Sengketa sepanjang 2018 ini bahkan melebihi dari total 2011-2017 yaitu 216 kasus.

grafis tempo
Grafis Jumlah Kasus UU ITE - TEMPO

Damar mengatakan kasus terbanyak adalah pidana yang berhubungan dengan penghinaan dan pencemaran nama baik atau defamasi, Pasal 27 ayat 3 UU ITE. Di posisi kedua adalah kasus ujaran kebencian pasal 28 ayat 2 UU ITE.

Menurut Damar, kedua sejoli ini memiliki tafsir yang sangat lentur sehingga banyak orang bisa dengan mudah terjerat. “Persoalan lain, ada aturan-aturan yang sering kali tak dipahami oleh penyidik di kepolisian,” kata Damar. “Misalnya dalam penggunaan pasal pencemaran nama baik.”

Persoalan lain, kata Damar, adalah penyidik yang sering mengabaikan definisi dari pencemaran nama baik atau defarmasi. Ia menjelaskan, Pasal 27 dalam beleid ini Pasal 27 ini menginduk pada Pasal 310 ayat (1) KUHP. Dalam KUHP, defarmasi adalah perbuatan menyerang kehormatan atau nama baik seseorang dengan menuduhkan sesuatu hal yang maksudnya terang supaya hal itu diketahui umum.

Nah, Damar meneruskan, idealnya penyidik kepolisian mendatangkan saksi ahli yang tepat untuk membedah terminologi pencemaran nama baik. Di sini permasalahanya, Ia menuturkan dalam beberapa kasus, saksi ahli yang didatangkan tak punya kapasitas. “Bahkan terkadang, pelapor yang mendatangkan saksi ahli sehingga independensi saksi ini dipertanyakan,” kata Damar.

Damar melihat pasal karet di dalam beleid ITE ini menjadi salah satu penyebab angka kebebasan berpendapat di Indonesia terus mengalami penurunan. Berdasarkan indeks kebebasan yang dirilis Freedom House pada 2019, Indonesia masuk kategori kuning yang artinya tak terlalu bebas.

Lembaga pemantau kebebasan dan demokrasi yang bermarkas di New York Amerika ini juga menyebut, dari skala satu sebagai yang paling buruk sampai tujuh yang terbaik, kebebasan sipil berada di angka 4.

grafis tempo
Grafis Skor Kebebasan Sipil Indonesia - TEMPO

Melihat kondisi tersebut, Paguyuban Korban UU ITE menilai penghapusan pasal karet sangat penting. Arsyad ingin kriminalisasi menggunakan beleid itu harus dihentikan. Apalagi, kata dia, ada penyalahgunaan pelaporan UU ITE. “Pelapor biasanya punya motif balas dendam, barter kasus, membungkam kritik, shock therapy, dan persekusi kelompok,” kata Arsyad.

Makanya, Paguyuban Korban UU ITE dan SAFENet mendesak agar dua pasal karet di dalam UU ITE ini dihapus. Toh, kata Damar, beleid pencemaran nama baik dan ujaran kebencian sudah ada di dalam KUHP. “Sebagai gantinya setiap perkara ini bisa lewat jalur perdata,” kata Damar.

Arsyad, Pengacara Korban UU ITE: Divonis Bebas Karena Tak Terbukti Mencemarkan Nama Baik - TEMPO

It was five years ago Muhammad Arsyad decided to abandon his hometown in Makassar after he was charged with ITE Law No.11/2008 on information and electronic transactions. “I was depressed throughout my incarceration, so was my family,” said Arsyad on Thursday, October 24, 2019. 

This anti-graft activist was accused of committing defamation following a report by Makassar’s Golkar Party administrator Wahib Tahir on July 9, 2013. Wahid accused Arsyad for publically smearing Nurdin Halid, a senior Golkar politician. The police report is based on Arsyad’s Blackberry status; “No fear Ancaman Nurdin Halid Koruptor!!! Jangan Pilih Adik Koruptor,” which translates to “No fear for the threat from corruptor Nurdin Halid! Do not vote for the corruptor’s younger brother.”

Confessions of ITE laws' victims - TEMPO

Exactly two months following his status update, the South Sulawesi Police named Arsyad suspect under the unrevised ITE Law and eventually arrested the activist. The law’s older statute sought six-years imprisonment as a punishment for violations of defamation. 

Arsyad’s case proceeded flawlessly to the Makassar District Court, which eventually sought the panel of judges to indict Arsyad seven-years of incarceration for unjust harm on Nurdin Halid’s reputation. 

grafis tempo
The ITE Law over the years - TEMPO

Fortunately, the Makassar District Court panel of judges exonerated Arsyad on May 28, 2014. As cited from Safenetvoice.org’s website; “[Arsyad] is not guilty of the crime indicted by the public prosecutor and must be exonerated from all charges. The panel of judges also ordered for Arsyad’s immediate release from prison,” 

Arsyad eventually suffered from the ordeal following his release. “Bearing the status as a former convict made it hard for me to get a job,” he said. His family eventually decided to sell their house in Makassar and move to the outskirts of South Sulawesi while Arsyad decided to move to Jakarta.

Arsyad briefly took a job as a House of Representatives legislator’s expert staff where he obtained a license as a lawyer. Currently, Arsyad is the coordinator of “Paku ITE”, a specific group advocating for victims of the ITE Law.

The Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFENet) Indonesia recorded 381 cases from 2011 to 2019 related to the use of the overbreadth law, this includes cases upon individuals and institutions. 

SAFENet is a non-profit organization that focuses on protecting online freedom of expression. Its coordinator, Damar Juniarto, explained to Tempo on Friday, November 15, 2019; “This number can grow bigger since we only record those that are published in mass media and formal complaints,” 

grafis tempo
Amount of ITE law cases - TEMPO

Damar cited the Supreme Court’s registration website that recorded 508 ITE Law court cases from 2011 to 2018. The most frequent was evident in 2018 with 292 cases, which is a colossal spike compared to the 140 cases in 2017. The number of disputes in 2018 greatly exceeded the 216 cases from 2011 - 2017 combined. 

Ranking first in terms of quantity were criminal cases charged under ITE Law’s Article 27 (3) on defamation allegations. Coming in second were cases related to ITE Law Article 28 (2). 

Damar contends that the nature of the two Articles enables ambiguous interpretations that can easily incriminate people. “Often there are rules that police investigators fail to comprehend,” he cited. “Such as the use of defamation clause.”

Moreover, Damar said investigators often neglect the bare definition of defamation. He said Article 27 mains from Article 310 (1) Criminal Code (KUHP). The Criminal Code defines defamation as acts of attacking an individual’s dignity or reputation by publicly accusing that individual. 

According to Damar, a police investigator should ideally summon expert witnesses who can accurately dissect how defamation is defined. This is where the problem lies, as most cases he came across showed incompetent expert witnesses summoned by police. “And sometimes the person who filed the report is the one summoning the expert witness, which begs the question about the witness’ independence,” said Damar. 

Damar argues that the reason Indonesia’s constant deteriorating freedom of speech can be traced to the ambiguous clauses contained in ITE Law. Freedom House’s 2019 freedom index showed Indonesia represented by the color yellow which is defined as “partly free.”

grafis tempo
Indonesia's civil freedoms score - TEMPO

From a scale of one to seven, the New York-based democracy and freedom monitoring NGO, scored Indonesia’s civilian freedom with an average 4. 

The abolishment of the “rubber law” is deemed crucial by the ITE Law’s victims’ association. Arsyad asserts that the criminalization through the misuse of the law must be put to an end. “The person reporting usually is motivated by revenge,  case barters, silencing critics, shock therapy, and group persecution,” said Arsyad. 

This is the main reason ITE Law’s victims’ association and SAFENet pushes for the extermination of the pair of deeply troubled Articles. Damar concludes that cases of defamation and hate speech are covered under the Criminal Code (KUHP). “As an exchange, each case can be handled as a civil case,” he said.

Arsyad, ITE Victim lawyer: Acquitted Due To Lack of Evidence - TEMPO

Ramsyiah, Dosen Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin: Tersangka Karena Mengkritik Dekan

Ramsyiah Tasruddin tak menyangka perkara dugaan pencemaran nama baik yang dua tahun lalu menghantuinya ujug-ujug mencuat pada awal September 2019. “Saya kaget polisi langsung menyerahkan surat penetapan tersangka,” kata Dosen Ilmu Komunikasi Fakultas Dakwah dan Komunikasi Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin, Makassar kepada Tempo, pada Sabtu 19 Oktober 2019.

Dalam surat berkop Kepolisian Resor Gowa itu polisi membidik Ramsyiah dengan Pasal 45 (3) juncto Pasal 27 (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik dengan ancaman hukuman maksimal 4 tahun dan atau Pasal 310 KUHP tentang penghinaan.

Ramsyiah menjadi tersangka setelah dilaporkan oleh Wakil Dekan III Fakultas Dakwah dan Komunikasi Nur Syamsiah pada medio 2017. Pangkal perkaranya, obrolan para dosen di grup percakapan WhatsApp terbatas bernama SAVE FDK UIN Alauddin.” Ramsyiah termasuk satu dari 30 dosen yang menjadi anggota grup. 

Ramsyiah bercerita persoalan ini bermula ketika Mahasiswa Fakultas Dakwah dan Komunikasi meminjam laboratorium fakultas untuk tempat praktek siaran radio pada Mei 2017. 

Rupanya, kegiatan ini tak mendapat restu dari Wakil Dekan III Fakultas Dakwah dan Komunikasi Nur Syamsiah. Ia menilai kegiatan di Radio Kampus tersebut ternyata beraktivitas di luar aturan yang telah ditentukan. 

Kemudian, Syamsiah meminta mahasiswa mengunci laboratorium itu dan mengambil kuncinya. “Padahal itu kan laboratorium tempatnya anak-anak praktek,” kata Ramsyiah. Insiden ini kemudian menjadi pembicaraan di grup WhatsApp Save LDK UIN Alauddin.

Ramsyiah mengatakan salah satu pembicaraan, misalnya, mempertanyakan sikap Nur Syamsiah yang melarang aktivitas radio itu. Padahal, mereka merasa seharusnya larangan menjadi tupoksi Wakil Dekan I.

Karena kasus penutupan Radio Syiar, para dosen pun meminta Dekan Ilmu Komunikasi bersikap. Mereka memberikan meminta kepada Dekan agar Radio Syiar bisa dibuka kembali. “Jadi tidak ada niat mencemarkan nama baik, ini curhat. Saya sudah minta maaf sama ibu Nur Syamsiah juga,” katanya.

Sementara itu, Nur Syamsiah mengatakan tak tahu menahu mengapa hanya Ramsyiah yang menjadi tersangka. “Padahal saya melaporkan banyak dosen,” kata Nur Syamsiah. “Tapi yang bersangkutan sudah diproses hukum dan tersangka, berarti ada ujaran kebencian.”

Pengacara Ramsyiah yang juga Kepala Divisi Hak Sipil dan Politik LBH Makassar, Abdul Azis Dumpa, mengatakan penetapan tersangka kepada Ramsyiah adalah bentuk kriminalisasi lantaran sikap kritisnya di kampus. Menurut dia, materi yang dibahas di grup Whatsapp oleh 30 dosen tersebut bukanlah untuk kepentingan pribadi. “Ini kan percakapan di internal, konsepnya untuk kepentingan umum,” kata Azis. 

Menurut dia, obrolan grup WA internal kampus itu membahas tentang masalah internal penguncian radio syiar. Abdul Azis mengatakan selain itu, anggota grup juga berupaya untuk mencari penyelesaian dari insiden tersebut. 

Selain itu, Azis menyayangkan bahwa laporan ini datang dari dunia kampus yang seharusnya mengedepankan dialog dan sikap kritis. “Kami meminta agar proses hukum terhadap dosen Ramsiah ini segera dihentikan dan meminta pihak UIN Alauddin untuk menyelesaikan persoalan ini secara kekeluargaan dan melalui mekanisme Internal,” ujarnya.

Azis melihat kasus ini juga menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan UU ITE selalu dilatarbelakangi konflik antara pelapor dan terlapor. Aturan itu digunakan sebagai alat untuk balas dendam. 

Dalam skala lebih besar, Azis mendesak agar pasal-pasal karena di dalam UU ITE ini dihapus, karena telah memakan banyak korban dan selalu menjadi alat kriminalisasi. “Obrolan Ramsyiah di grup WA bukan bukan merupakan tindak pidana penghinaan atau pencemaran nama baik sebagaimana dimaksud dalam pasal 27 ayat 3 UU ITE dan 310 KUHP, kata Aziz. 

Kepala Sub Bagian (Kasubag) Hubungan Masyarakat Kepolisian Resor Gowa, Ajun Komisaris Polisi Mangatas Tambunan mengatakan polisi punya alasan kuat untuk menetapkan Ramsyiah sebagai tersangka. Penyidik, kata dia, telah menggelar perkara yang dikuatkan dengan keterangan saksi sebanyak 17 orang, tiga diantaranya adalah ahli bahasa, IT dan hukum pidana. “Tersangka juga kita telah mintai keterangan dua kali sebagai saksi,” ucapnya.

Didit Haridyadi (Makassar)

Ramsyiah, Alauddin Islamic State University lecturer:Named a suspect after Criticizing the dean

Ramsyiah Tasruddin never thought his alleged defamation charges would haunt him again two years after in September 2019. “I was surprised that police immediately handed my suspect-naming notice,” said the lecturer of communication science and dakwa faculty to Tempo on Saturday, October 19, 2019.

Police’s notice explains that Ramsyiah faces a 4-year imprisonment under ITE Law’s article 45 (3) and Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) regarding slander after the campus’ deputy dean III, Nur Syamsiah, filed a police complaint in 2017. The report is based on a Whatsapp group chat among 30 campus lecturers, Ramsyiah included, dubbed  SAVE FDK UIN Alauddin. 

He recalled that it began when a student borrowed the faculty’s laboratorium to exercize radio broadcasting in May of 2017. As it turned out, the exercise was not approved by Nur Syamsiah as the deputy dean of dakwa and communication faculty who deemed the activity illegal. 

The deputy dean then requested students to lock the lab and take the key with them. “That lab is where students conduct their exercises,” said Ramsyiah. This incident incited a discussion in the  SAVE FDK UIN Alauddin Whatsapp group chat. 

One of the discussions that emerge in the group, said Ramsyiah, questioned the deputy dean’s decision to ban radio activities in the lab even though such ban could only be authorized by deputy dean I. Due to the closure of the campus’ radio program “Radio Syiar,” the lecturers requested the Communication Science dean to take action and urged for the program to be reintroduced. “There were no intentions to defame anyone. I have also apologized to Nur Syamsiah,” said Ramsyiah.

Nur Syamsiah claimed innocence as she was also puzzled by Ramsyiah’s suspect-naming, “I reported a number of lecturers, but it was him who was legally processed and eventually was named a suspect. This means there were elements of hate speech,” said the deputy dean III. 

Ramsyiah’s lawyer and the Makassar Legal Aid (LBH) head of civilian rights and politics, Abdul Azis Dumpa, said that Ramsiah’s suspect-naming is a blatant attempt to criminalize his critical demeanor in campus. “This is an internal group chat, the concept of the [law] is for public interests,” Azis asserts. 

He argues that the internal Whatsapp group chat discussed an internal issue which was followed up by members of the group collectively searching for a solution regarding the radio incident. 

Other than that, Azis also regrets that the complaint came from a campus civity, which should have put forth critical thinking and dialogue. “We highly urge the legal proceeding against Ramsyiah to be dropped and asks UIN Alauddin management to solve the issue through an internal mechanism.”

Azis views this case as a prime example that ITE Law cases are always motivated by a conflict between the defendant and plaintiff. It is also used as a tool to commit revenge. In a larger scale, Azis urged for articles contained in the ITE Law to be dropped entirely since it always manages to prey on people and be a tool of criminalization. 

“The conversation in the Whatsapp group is not a criminal offense as mentioned in ITE’s article 27 (3) and Criminal Code article 310,” said Azis. 

Gowa Police spokesman, adjunct commissioner Mangatas Tambunan defends that police has strong reasons to name Ramsyiah suspect. He maintains that investigators asked the opinion of 17 people that consist of linguistic experts, IT expert, and criminal law expert. “The suspect was summoned for questioning twice as a witness,” the police commissioner recalled.

Veronica Koman, Aktivis HAM: Menjadi Tersangka karena Cuitan Dia Soal Papua

AKTIVIS Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) Veronica Koman tak kaget ketika Kepolisian Daerah Jawa Timur mengumumkan dia menjadi tersangka. “Sudah lama saya menduga hal seperti ini bakal terjadi,” kata Veronica ketika dihubungi pada Rabu, 27 November 2019. 

Polisi menuding pengacara hak asasi manusia dan pendamping mahasiswa Papua di Surabaya itu memprovokasi dan menyebarkan berita bohong di media sosial. 

"Dari hasil gelar perkara tadi malam akhirnya kami menetapkan yang bersangkutan sebagai tersangka," kata Kepala Polda Jawa Timur, Inspektur Jenderal Luki Hermawan, saat konferensi pers, Rabu, 4 September 2019.

Luki mengatakan Veronica menyebarkan provokasi di media sosial terkait insiden di asrama mahasiswa asal Papua di Surabaya pada 16 Agustus 2019. Polisi memastikan Veronica memang tak ada di asrama ketika pengepungan. Tetapi, Luki menuturkan ia aktif menyebarkan provokasi.

Polisi menjerat Veronica dengan pasal berlapis. Salah satunya, beleid soal menyebarkan kebencian dalam Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.

Luki kemudian merinci beberapa kalimat yang menurut polisi merupakan provokasi dan berita bohong. “Dia mengatakan seruan mobilisasi aksi monyet turun ke jalan untuk besok di Jayapura," kata Luki. Selain itu, Luki mengatakan Veronica juga menulis ada 43 mahasiswa Papua di Surabaya ditangkap tanpa alasan jelas, 5 orang terluka dan 1 terkena tembakan gas air mata.

Polda Jawa Timur sudah mengirimkan surat ke pihak Divisi Hubungan Internasional (Divhubinter) Polri untuk menerbitkan red notice atas Veronica. Polisi pun menyurati Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi untuk meminta passport Veronica dicabut.

Cerita Veronica - TEMPO

Twitt yang dipersoalkan polisi ini bermula dari insiden pengepungan asrama Mahasiswa Papua pada 16 Agustus 2019. Kala itu, aparat dan sejumlah ormas mendatangi asrama mahasiswa Papua di Surabaya. Mereka datang ke sana karena mendapat kabar mahasiswa yang ada di dalam sana merusak tiang bendera merah putih.

Belakangan, pengepungan ini menjadi pemantik gerakan Mahasiswa Papua di beberapa daerah. Mereka menuntut pemerintah turun tangan mengusut insiden pengepungan yang juga diwarnai ujaran bernada rasis kepada para mahasiswa.

Veronica mengatakan kriminalisasi yang menimpanya hanyalah satu dari sekian banyak kasus intimidasi besar-besaran yang sedang dialami orang Papua saat ini. Ia berpendapat, pemerintah pusat beserta aparatur nampak tidak kompeten dalam menyelesaikan konflik berkepanjangan di Papua. "Hingga harus mencari kambing hitam atas apa yang terjadi saat ini," kata dia. "Cara seperti ini justru memperdalam luka dan memperuncing konflik Papua." 

Veronica mengatakan sudah menyadari bakal terjerat dengan UU ITE, “Kan yang paling karet dan paling gampang buat jerat saya ya UU ITE ini,” kata dia.

Kepolisian, kata Veronica, telah menyalahgunakan wewenangnya. Ia juga menyebut upaya penetapan tersangka ini berlebihan. Menurut Veronica, ia sama sekali tak pernah menyebarkan provokasi apalagi berita bohong soal Papua.

Ia mengatakan seluruh twitt-nya berdasarkan fakta dan kejadian di lapangan. “Semua yang berhubungan dengan Papua pasti tertutup, makanya saya mencoba memberikan informasi yang utuh soal kondisi di sana,” kata Veronica.

Makanya, Veronica memutuskan tak akan pulang terlebih dahulu ke Indonesia. Ia menuturkan keberadaannya akan lebih berguna di Australia. Apalagi, kata dia, saat ini sudah mendekati tanggal 1 Desember yang oleh pemerintah dianggap selalu bakal ada gerakan besar-besaran kemerdekaan Papua.

Veronica curiga Pemerintah akan menutup akses internet pada 1 Desember. “Makanya saya lebih baik tetap mengabarkan informasi seputar Papua dari sini,” kata dia.

Veronica Koman, Human rights activist: Tweet about Papua turns her criminal suspect

Human rights activist Veronica Koman was not surprised when the East Java Police announced her status as a criminal suspect. “I long expected something like this would eventually happen,” said Veronica as Tempo reached her on November 27, 2019.

Police accuses the lawyer for Papuan migrant students in Surabaya of spreading lies in social media platforms. “Based on the initial investigation last night, we eventually named her a suspect,” said East Java Police Chief Insp. General Luki Hermawan in a press conference on September 4, 2019. 

According to Luki, Veronica had been provocative in social media regarding the incident that happened at a dorm room of Papuan migrant students in Surabaya on August 16, 2019. Police maintains the dorm was not under police siege despite Veronica tweeting otherwise. 

Police charged her for multiple felonies, ITE Law’s article overseeing hate speech being one of it. The police chief claims Veronica’s words had contained several provocative words and fabricated news. “She called for the mobilization of the ‘monkey rally’ on the streets in Jayapura,” said Luki. He also accuses Veronica spreading false information on 43 students who were wrongfully arrested, 5 injuries, and one victim of police’s tear gas.

The East Java Police followed up the case to the National Police’s international division (Divhubinter) and requested for the red notice to be issued against Veronica. They also requested the directorate-general of immigrations to revoke Veronica’s passport. 

Veronica Stories - TEMPO

Veronica’s tweet that police are having trouble with refers to the incident on August 16, 2019, when a number of mass organizations gathered in front of the Papuan students' dormitory. Their presence was sparked by information that the students had defiled the state-flag pole ahead of the national independence day. 

This exact incident sparked nationwide Papuan students’ movement. The government was also urged to investigate the persecution and verbal racial attacks expressed by mass organization members during the persecution.

Veronica maintains that the criminalization against her is merely one case out of the dozens of mass-intimidations that Papuans must face currently. She said the central government and state apparatus’ seem to be incompetent in solving a prolonged conflict emerging in Papua up to the point “They need to find a scape goat for what is currently happening. Attempts such as these only serve to deepen the scars and worsen Papuan conflicts,’ said Veronica. 

Veronica said she had always been aware of being the easiest target of the ITE Law, “The most open to interpretation and easiest to be incriminated under the ITE Law is me.” She maintains police have abused its authority and considers her suspect-naming an exaggeration as she claims to have never provoked the public regarding the Papuan incident, moreover spreading false news. 

She explained that her entire series of tweets are based on facts that happened in the field. “Every information related to Papua is always shady. This is why I try to give complete information regarding the conditions there,” she said.

Her defense is the reason she decides to temporarily reside in Australia to serve a more useful role. Especially nearing December 1st which she considers as an annual momentum where Papuan independence movements will resurface and suspects the government will massively hamper internet access on December 1. “Which is why it is better to report on issues related to Papua from [Australia],” she said.

Saiful Mahdi, Dosen Kampus Negeri: Menjadi Tersangka karena Mengkritik Seleksi CPNS Kampus

Dosen Fakultas Ilmu Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (MIPA) Universitas Syiah Kuala Saiful Mahdi tak menyangka kritiknya terhadap proses rekrutmen Calon Pegawai Negeri Sipil di kampus tersebut berujung pada penetapan tersangka.

Kepolisian Resor Kota Banda Aceh menetapkan Saiful sebagai tersangka pencemaran nama baik atau defarmasi pada akhir Agustus 2019. Polisi menjerat Saiful dengan Pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE). “Padahal, saya hanya mengkritik dan sama sekali tak menyinggung siapapun,” kata Saiful kepada Tempo pada Kamis, 31 Oktober 2019.

Saiful menuturkan pangkal persoalan ini bermula ketika Unsyiah menggelar rekrutmen CPNS pada akhir 2018. Belakangan, ia mendapat cerita dari beberapa orang bahwa ada pegawai di Unsyiah yang ikut seleksi untuk pos dosen Fakultas Teknik namun tak lolos. Padahal, kata dia, seluruh nilai si pegawai ini lebih dari cukup. Alih-alih, kampus malah meloloskan orang lain.

Kemudian, Saiful mencurahkan uneg-unegnya soal penerimaan CPNS ini di grup bernama “Unsyiah Kita” pada Maret 2019. Ia menulis “Innalillahiwainnailaihirajiun. Dapat kabar duka matinya akal sehat dalam jajaran pimpinan FT Unsyiah saat tes PNS kemarin. Bukti determinisme teknik itu sangat mudah dikorup? Gong Xi Fat Cai!!! Kenapa ada fakultas yang pernah berjaya kemudian memble? Kenapa ada fakultas baru begitu membanggakan? Karena meritokrasi berlaku sejak rekrutmen hanya pada medioker atau yang terjerat “hutang” yang takut meritokrasi.”

Cerita Saiful - TEMPO

Status ini berbuntut panjang, Senay Unsyiah sempat meminta klarifikasi kepada Saiful pada 18 Maret 2019. Menurut Saiful, dalam pertemuan ini senat meminta penjelasan kepada dia soal status tersebut.

Belakangan, rektor Unsyiah mengirim surat kepada Saiful Mahdi perihal Teguran Pelanggaran Etika Akademik pada 6 Mei 2019. Surat itu meminta Saiful segera meminta maaf kepada pimpinan Fakultas Teknik. Saiful keberatan dengan surat dari rektorat itu. Alasannya, ia sama sekali tidak pernah mendapat undangan untuk sidang etik. “Pertemuan dengan senat hanya klarifikasi,” kata dia. 

Kemudian, Saiful mendapat panggilan sebagai saksi kasus pencemaran nama baik di Polresta Banda Aceh pada medio Mei 2019. Dua kali diperiksa sebagai saksi, Polisi menetapkan Saiful sebagai tersangka pada Jumat, 30 Agustus 2019. Polisi pun sudah melimpahkan berkas perkara Saiful ke Kejaksaan Negeri Aceh pada Rabu, 27 November 2019.

Sementara itu, Rektor Universitas Syiah Kuala Samsul Rizal mengatakan sidang etik kampus sebenarnya sudah memeriksa Saiful Mahdi. “Senat Universitas menyatakan dia harus meminta maaf karena menyebarkan kabar tak benar tapi dia menolak meminta maaf,” kata Samsul kepada wartawan. 

Karena Saiful tak kunjung meminta maaf, Samsul mengatakan Dekan Fakultas Teknis memutuskan membawa perkara ini ke ranah hukum. “Dekan Fakultas Teknik merasa nama baik lembaga yang ia pimpin sudah dicemarkan, makanya ia melaporkan Saiful ke polisi,” kata Samsul.

Becomes a suspect after criticizing campus civil servant enrollment test (CPNS)

This lecturer of Syiah Kuala University’s Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty never expected his criticism towards the campus CPNS recruitment process would end in his suspect-naming.  

The Banda Aceh Police named Saiful suspect over defamation charges on August 2019 under ITE Law Article 27 (3). “Even though it was only criticism and had not intended to offend any individual,” said Saidul to Tempo on October 31, 2019. 

He said the case started when the university opened recruitment at the end of 2018. An employee of the university also participated, yet failed, in the selection process for a slot as an Engineering Faculty lecturer. Many of the employee’s acquaintances claimed his scores were sufficient but the campus decided to accept another candidate. 

Reflecting on this story, Saiful vented in a group entitled “Unsyiah Kita” on March 2019, where he wrote “Innalillahiwainnailaihirajiun. We received devastating news of the death of the Engineering Faculty’s common sense in the CPNS yesterday. It’s proof that their determination is easily corrupt? Gong Xi Fat Cai!!! Why is there a once commendable faculty that has now turned weak? Why is there new faculties that are suddenly the campus’ pride? Because meritocracy has prevailed since recruitments. Only mediocres or those “in-debt” are afraid of meritocracy.”

His status had its implications when the campus senat demanded Saiful to clarify his statement on March 18, 2019. It was followed by the campus rector sending Saiful an official written notice of an academic ethical violation and demanded him to apologize to leaders of the Engineering Faculty.

However, Saiful objected the notice and defends that he never received an invitation for an ethical trial. “The meeting with the senate is just to clarify,” he said. 

Saiful then received a police summons as a witness over an alleged defamation on May 2019. After questioning him twice as a witness, the Banda Aceh Police eventually named Saiful a suspect on Friday, August 30, and had handed his criminal files to the Aceh District Court on Wednesday, November 27, 2019. 

 

Meanwhile, Syiah Kuala University rector, Samsul Rizal, said the campus’ ethics trial already questioned Saiful Mahdi. “University senats demanded an apology from him for spreading false information, however, he refused to do that,” said Samsul to journalists. 

Samsul said the dean of the faculty of engineering decided to take this issue to the realm of law after Saiful never apologized. 

“The engineering faculty dean filed a police complaint after he felt the reputation of the institution he leads had been defamed,” Samsul explained.

Anindya Sabrina, Mahasiswi: Dibidik Pencemaran Nama Baik Karena Cerita Soal Pelecehan Seksual

SEPUCUK surat berkop Kepolisian Resor Kota Besar Surabaya itu seperti menghantam ulu hati Anindya Sabrina. Diantar oleh dua orang yang mengaku sebagai anggota polisi pada medio Agustus 2018, lelayang itu menjelaskan Polrestabes Surabaya sudah memulai penyidikan dugaan pencemaran nama baik dengan terlapor Anindya.

“Saya dapat surat perintah penyidikan, padahal saya tidak pernah pernah diperiksa sama sekali sebagai saksi dalam penyelidikan,” kata Anindya menceritakan ulang kejadian itu ketika ditemui di Bogor pada Jumat, 18 Oktober 2019. 

Dalam surat itu, Anindya dilaporkan oleh Ketua Ikatan Keluarga Besar Papua Surabaya (IKBPS), Pieter Frans Rumaseb, pada 25 Juli 2018 atas dugaan pencemaran nama baik. Ia melaporkan Anindya dengan Pasal 27 Undang-undang Informasi Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE).

Pangkal laporan ini adalah status yang diunggah Anindya di dinding Facebook-nya pada medio Agustus 2019. Saat itu, Anindya menuliskan kronologis dugaan pelecehan seksual yang menimpa mahasiswi Fakultas Hukum Universitas Narotama, Surabaya saat Satuan Polisi Pamong Praja Kota Surabaya menggelar operasi kependudukan di Asrama Mahasiswa Papua.

Saat itu, Anindya dan beberapa kawannya menggelar nonton film bareng dan diskusi di asrama mahasiswa Papua yang terletak di Jalan Kalasan Nomor 10, Surabaya, Jawa Timur pada 6 Juli 2018. 

Asrama ini merupakan tempat tinggal yang sempat menjadi sorotan karena dikepung oleh aparatur penegak hukum dan ormas di Surabaya pada 16 Agustus 2019. Pengepungan ini berujung pada unjuk rasa di sejumlah kota dan menyulut kerusuhan di Papua. Anindya merupakan mahasiswi yang memang aktif mengadvokasi isu-isu Papua. 

Anindya menuturkan, malam itu, sekitar pukul 20.30 WIB, ketika diskusi sudah hampir selesai, polisi, TNI, dan Satpol PP Kota Surabaya mendatangi asrama. Anindya menuturkan aparat gabungan ini memaksa masuk ke asrama dengan dalih sedang menggelar operasi kependudukan.

Cerita Anindya - TEMPO

Anindya dan beberapa aktivis LBH Surabaya kemudian menanyakan surat tugas. Tapi petugas menolak. Aparat, kata Anindya, sempat memaksa masuk sehingga berujung cekcok. Belakangan, Petugas menyeret Anindya dan kawan-kawannya menjauhi asrama. “Ketika penyeretan itu ada bapak-bapak yang sengaja meremas payudara saya,” kata Anindya. “Saya sempat teriak tapi petugas diam saja.” 

Beberapa hari kemudian, Anindya melaporkan insiden pelecehan seksual ini ke polisi. Namun, ia mengatakan tak pernah ada tanggapan dari kepolisian. Hingga ia akhirnya memutuskan mengunggah cerita tersebut di Facebook. Status ini yang kemudian digunakan Pieter untuk melaporkan Anindya.

Anindya menuturkan ajaibnya ia sama sekali tak mengenal Pieter. Bahkan, kata dia, status Facebook yang menjadi pangkal permasalahan ini pun sama sekali tak menyinggung nama Pieter. 

Kepala Satuan Reserse Kriminal Polrestabes Surabaya, Ajun Komisaris Besar Sudamiran, mengatakan kasus dugaan pencemaran nama baik yang menjerat Anindya masih terus berlanjut. "Itu masih jalan. Cuma kami perlu pendalaman," kata dia singkat kepada saat Tempo, Senin, 11 November 2019.

Adapun terkait kasus dugaan pelecehan yang dialami Anindya, Sudamiran mengaku polisi sudah menindaklanjutinya. Namun setelah dilakukan penyelidikan tak terbukti. "Buktinya nggak ada juga. Saksi-saksi juga kurang mendukung," katanya sembari membantah adanya diskriminatif dalam menangani kasus.

Sementara Pieter mengatakan ia melaporkan Anindya karena dirasa mencemarkan nama baiknya. "Kalau tidak ada keterkaitan dengan saya, nggak mungkin saya melaporkan dia," ujar pria menjabat Kepala Bidang Ketertiban Umum dan Ketentraman Masyarakat Satpol PP Kota Surabaya itu. 

Dia menegaskan pelaporan itu dalam kapasitasnya sebagai Ketua Ikatan Keluarga Besar Papua Surabaya bukan mewakili institusi tempatnya bekerja.

Anindya mengatakan perkara ini sudah menguras energi dan pikirannya. Bahkan, ia curiga polisi sengaja menggantung perkara ini. “Saya sudah diperiksa tiga kali dan selalu dipanggil ketika akan ada diskusi soal Papua,” kata dia. “Saya lebih tenang kalau perkara ini segera naik ke persidangan agar fair.”

Nur Hadi (Surabaya)

Anindya Sabrina, College student: Faces defamation charges for exposing sexual harassment

Anindya Sabrina’s heart suddenly dropped after receiving a warrant from the Surabaya Police in August of 2018. The two policemen delivering the letter to her explained that the investigation against her had already commenced. 

“I received the warrant even though I was never questioned as a witness,” Anindya recalled on October 18, 2019.

The warrant states that Anindya had been reported by the chairman of the Papuan Family Association of Surabaya (IKBPS), Pieter Frans Rumaseb, on July 25 that same year over an alleged defamation under ITE Law article 27.

It all began when Anindya published a Facebook status in August 2019 describing the alleged sexual harassment experienced by a female student of the Narotama University’s Law School when the Surabayan Public Order Police (Pamong Praja/Satpol PP) conducted an operation on the Papuan dormitory. At the time, Anindya and several other of her friends hosted a movie night and discussion at the Papuan students’ dormitory located in Surabaya’s Kalasan Street No.10 on July 6, 2018.

This is the same Papuan migrant students’ dorm that received persecution by mass organizations and state apparatus’ on August 16, 2019. According to Anindya - who actively advocates issues regarding Papua - recalled the night members of the police, military, and Satpol PP in a joint operation forced to enter the dorm. 

Their attempt to force their way in was blocked by a number of Surabaya Legal Aid activists who demanded an official assignment letter. However, the activists’ requests were rejected by authorities which sparked physical altercation between the two sides. It was only recently known that police forced hauled Anindya and her friends away from the dorm. “During that, there was a man who intentionally grabbed by chest,” said Anindya. “I screamed but authorities did nothing.”

Anindya Stories - TEMPO

Her police complaint following the incident was also not followed up. It was only when Anindya took to Facebook that Pieter used as a reason to file a police complaint against her. This came as a complete surprise to her as she never knew Pieter nor did she mention his name in her Facebook status. 

 

Surabaya Police’s criminal investigation unit chief, Adjunct Grand Commissioner Sudamiran, said the alleged defamation case that entangled Anindya is still ongoing. “That was a follow up. We only need to investigate it deeper,” said the police chief to Tempo on November 11, 2019. 

As for the alleged sexual harassment experienced by Anindya, Sudamiran claims police have followed that up but was not proven after an investigation was commenced. 

“There were no evidence. The witnesses were also unreliable,” said Sudamiran who also denies that he is discriminative in handling criminal cases. 

Meanwhile, Pieter Frans Rumaseb claims he reported Anindya after he felt defamed by her. “I wouldn’t have reported her to the police if it had nothing to do with me,” said the man who also holds the position as Surabaya’s Satpol PP’s Head of Public Order and Community.

Despite the aforementioned fact, Pieter said he is not representing the institution he works in filing the police complaint.

Anindya asserts that the case has drained her mentally and physically. She also suspects that police intentionally prolonged the case. “I have been questioned three times and each time I was there, there would always be discussions about Papua. I would be much calmer if the case soon goes to trial, that would be fair.”

Furqan Ermansyah alias Rudi Lombok, Pengusaha Travel: Menjadi Terpidana Karena Mengkritik Dinas Pariwisata

SENIN, 11 Mei 2015, semestinya menjadi hari membahagiakan bagi Furqan Ermansyah. Anak bungsunya yang duduk di kelas III sekolah dasar hari itu genap berusia 8 tahun. Keluarga pun telah menyiapkan perayaan kecil-kecilan: makan malam bersama di sebuah restoran cepat saji. Namun rencana itu buyar ketika sore harinya Furqan menelepon ke rumah. Ia menyampaikan kabar buruk.

Siang itu Furqan menjalani pemeriksaan kedua di Kepolisian Daerah Nusa Tenggara Barat. Hingga larut malam, tak ada tanda-tanda pemeriksaan dengan polisi bakal segera rampung. "Ternyata penyidik menahan saya," kata Furqan, menceritakan ulang peristiwa itu pada Rabu, 27 November 2019.

Keesokan harinya, istri Furqan, Murni Hayanti Fatimah, mendatangi kantor polisi bersama pengacara. Mereka mengajukan penangguhan penahanan Furqan. Namun polisi menolak permohonan itu. Furqan pun meminta istrinya tak menceritakan penahanan dia kepada ketiga anaknya.

Furqan berurusan dengan polisi setelah dilaporkan Kepala Badan Promosi Pariwisata Nusa Tenggara Barat Taufan Rahmadi pada Desember tahun lalu. Taufan menuding Furqan mencemarkan namanya lewat tulisan di jejaring sosial Facebook. Polisi lantas menjerat Furqan dengan Pasal 27 ayat 3 dan Pasal 45 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (ITE).

Furqan termasuk anggota aktif di forum diskusi yang sering membahas perkembangan pariwisata di Nusa Tenggara Barat itu. Di Facebook, ia memakai nama beken Rudy Lombok—julukan semasa kecilnya. Furqan sendiri sudah 26 tahun berkecimpung di bidang usaha perjalanan. Terakhir ia memiliki sebuah biro travel.

Cerita Rudi - TEMPO

Furqan mempertanyakan alasan situs milik lembaga pemerintah, www.bppdntb.com, mempromosikan paket wisata dari salah seorang agen pariwisata di Lombok. Menurut dia, situs milik lembaga pemerintah semestinya tidak mencari untung. 

Apalagi operasionalisasi situs itu sudah dibiayai anggaran daerah. Setelah muncul kritik itu, situs milik Badan Promosi Pariwisata tersebut sempat ditutup. Ketika www.bppdntb.com muncul lagi, tawaran paket jalan-jalan di situs tersebut sudah hilang.

Dua tulisan berikutnya diunggah Furqan pada 21 Januari 2015 dan 5 Februari 2015. Kedua tulisan menyoroti perhelatan "Tambora Menyapa Dunia" yang sepi peminat. Furqan menilai perhelatan itu tak berhasil menyedot pengunjung karena panitia memang "tidak cakap". Di samping itu, ia menganggap iklan Badan Promosi Pariwisata tentang acara tersebut lebih menonjolkan profil Taufan Rahmadi ketimbang gambaran potensi wisata sesungguhnya.

Rupanya, kritik Furqan membuat gerah pegawai Badan Promosi Pariwisata NTB. "Kami tak alergi jika dikritik, tapi ini sudah menjurus ke fitnah," ucap Taufan, ketika diwawancara Tempo pada 2015. Setelah menggelar rapat dengan semua pegawai, Taufan pun melaporkan Furqan ke polisi. Furqan pun menjadi tersangka.

Furqan mengatakan selama menyandang status tersangka. Ia kehilangan mata pencaharian sebagai penyedia jasa wisata. “Penahanan saya ditangguhkan tapi saya jadi tahanan kota sehingga tak bisa kemana-mana,” kata dia. 

Perkara Furqan melaju ke meja hijau. Pada Pengadilan Negeri Mataram memvonis Furqan bersalah. Majelis hakim menyatakan ia terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana pencemaran nama baik. Hakim memvonis Furqan 10 bulan penjara dengan masa percobaan selama 1 tahun.

Kini masa hukuman Furqan sudah selesai. Ia pun memutuskan bergabung dengan Paguyuban Korban UU ITE (Paku ITE). “Di sana saya melihat aturan ITE ini memang lentur,” kata Furqan. Ia melihat banyak orang menjadi korban karena ketimpangan relasi sosial. Makanya, Furqan pun mendesak agar beleid pencemaran nama baik dalam UU ITE dihilangkan. 

Rurqan Ermansyah or Rudi Lombok, travel industry entrepreneur:Defendant due to criticism against the tourism agency

It should have been a joyous day for Furqan Ermansyah. He had planned to have dinner at a fast food restaurant to celebrate the birthday of his youngest that turns 8-years old. However, he was forced to cancel it as he received a phone call that afternoon bringing with it bad news. 

Now in November 27, 2019, he recalled undergoing a never-ending police questioning at the West Nusa Tenggara Police that lasted until late into the night. “It turned out police investigators detained me,” recalling the incident.

The following day after his questioning, Furqan’s wife, Murni Hayanti Fatimah, visited the police headquarters accompanied by a lawyer where they requested for Furqan’s detention to be suspended. Police eventually rejected the request. Furqan told his wife not to tell his fate to their three children. 

Furqan’s affair with the police came after a complaint was filed by the head of NTB’s tourism and promotion board, Taufan Rahmadi, in December last year. Taufan accused Furqan had defamed him in Facebook. Police eventually charged Furqan under ITE Law’s article 27 (3) and article 45 (1). 

Furqan is an active member of the discussion forum that discusses the development of NTB’s tourism. The travel agent with 26 years of experience under his belt is known in Facebook as Rudy Lombok — his childhood nickname. 

Rudi Stories - TEMPO

He questioned the reason why a state-run website, www.bppdntb.com, is promoting a tour package from one of Lombok’s tour agents. He argues that a state-owned business should be profit-oriented. 

Especially when the operations of the website is funded by the regional budget. The website itself was briefly inaccessible following Furqan’s critique. But once it was operational again, the tour package were no longer offered by the website. 

Furqan posted two articles on January 21, 2015, and February 5, 2015, highlighting the "Tambora Menyapa Dunia" event that did not get a good reception. He criticized the event and blamed it on the “incompetent” organizers. He also said the Tourism Board heavily promoted Taufan Rahmadi rather than the region’s actual potential as a tourism site.

His criticism had offended employees of the NTB Tourism Board. “We are not allergic to criticism, but this is leading to slander,” said Taufan in an interview with Tempo in 2015. Furqan filed a complaint to the police after holding a meeting with his staff, which eventually led to Furqan’s suspect-naming. 

Furqan said he lost his job as a tour service provider as he bears the suspect status. “I had my detention suspended but I was in city arrest that prevented me from going anywhere.” His case went on to trial at the Mataram District Court, where he was named a suspect of defamation and had to undergo incarceration for 10-months and 1-year probation. 

As of now, he has completed his sentence but decided to join the Community of ITE Law Victims (Paku ITE). “It was there that I realised the ITE law is truly flexible to interpretation,” said Furqan after meeting people who shared the same fate as he did. He now actively fights for the annulment of ITE’s Article on defamation.

Zakki Amali, Wartawan: Dilaporkan Rektor Unnes karena Tulisannya di Media Massa

Tawaran menjadi dosen di Universitas Negeri Semarang itu datang kepada Zakki Amali beberapa bulan setelah pihak kampus melaporkan wartawan ini ke Polda Jawa Tengah. Rektorat Unnes melaporkan Zakki menggunakan Pasal 27 ayat 3 Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik ((UU ITE) tentang pencemaran nama baik dengan ancaman empat tahun penjara atas liputan Zakki di Serat.id. 

“Dia menawari aku mengajar di Unnes sebagai bentuk permintaan maaf,” kata Zakki pada Kamis, 7 November 2019. Namun, Zakki menolak tawaran tersebut. Ia meminta Kampus Unnes yang terletak di Gunung Pati mengajukan permintaan maaf secara terbuka dan diliput media. 

Persoalan ini berawal ketika Zakki menurunkan laporan di Serat.id tentang dugaan plagiarisme yang dilakukan Rektor Unnes Fathur Rahman pada Juni 2018. 

Kala itu, Zakki menemukan naskah karya Fathur berjudul “Kode Bahasa dalam Literasi Sosial Santri: Kajian Sosiolinguistik di Pesantren Banyumas” mirip dengan naskah “Pemakaian Kode Bahasa dalam Interaksi Sosial Santri dan Implikasinya bagi Rekayasa Bahasa Indonesia: Kajian Sosiolinguistik di Pesantren Banyumas” karya Anif Rida.

Karya Fathur terbit di Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya (Litera) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Volume 3 Nomor 1 Tahun 2004. Sedangkan tulisan Anif Rida muncul di Prosiding Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya (Kolita) 1 Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya Jakarta 2003.

Rektorat Unnes kemudian melaporkan Zakki ke Direktorat Kriminal Khusus Polda Jawa Tengah pada 21 Juli 2018. Polisi sudah memanggil Zakki dua kali pada 16 Oktober dan 14 November 2018. Namun, ia memilih tak datang.

Zakki tak memenuhi panggilan karena menganggap polisi mengabaikan Undang-Undang Pers. “Sebagai bentuk protes kepada kepolisian karena dia menjalankan pemeriksaan tanpa menghormati UU Pers,” katanya.

Menurut Zakki, surat panggilan kedua itu merupakan yang terakhir. Setelah itu ia tak lagi menerima panggilan dari kepolisian. “Belum pernah menjalani pemeriksaan karena ketika dipanggil tidak hadir,” kata Zakki.

Zakki kemudian mengadukan kasus yang menjeratnya ke Dewan Pers. Ia meminta perlindungan hukum dan penilaian karya kepada Dewan Pers. Permintaan tersebut ia sampaikan secara formal melalui surat dan informal. “Setiap ketemu Dewan Pers saya lobi,” ucapnya.

Menurut Zakki, masalah ini cukup menguras waktu, tenaga, dan pikirannya. Pasalnya, ketika awal mendapat panggilan dari kepolisian upaya advokasi berlangsung siang dan malam. “Sampai sekarang masih berlanjut tetapi tidak intens,” katanya. “Di Sekretariat Aliansi Jurnalis Independen Kota Semarang orang datang dan pergi menanyakan kasus.”

Kedua orang tuanya juga turut menanggung pikiran karena kasus tersebut. Zakki telah berusaha merahasiakan informasi bahwa ia dilaporkan polisi kepada orangtuanya. Namun, berita tersebut sampai di telinga orangtuanya. “Bapak ibu berpesan yang penting saya benar,”ujarnya.

Kini, Zakki tetap menekuni profesinya sebagai jurnalis dengan bergabung di Tirto.id di Yogyakarta. “Tidak punya pikiran ke Yogyakarta tetapi karena ada tawaran dan diterima, saya pikir kenapa tidak diambil,” tuturnya.

Terpisah, Rektor Unnes Fathur menyebut perselisihan antara dirinya dengan Zakki merupakan kasus lama. Menurut Fathur, kasus tersebut telah selesai. “Kasus lama sudah selesai,” katanya melalui pesan Whatsapp, Jumat, 8 November 2019.

Fathur mengklaim bahwa kedua pihak telah saling memaafkan. Namun, ketika Tempo mengajukan permintaan wawancara, Fathur tak bersedia. Permintaan wawancara kembali Tempo layangkan melalui pesan Whatsapp pada Senin, 11 November 2019, tetapi Fathur tak menanggapi.

Jamal Abdul Nashr (Semarang)

Zakki Amali, Reporter: Reported by university rector over a news article

Zakki Amali was offered a position as a lecturer in Semarang State University (Unnes) months after campus management filed a police complaint against him to the Central Java Police. He was accused of defaming the university in Zakki’s news report published in Serat.id overseen by ITE Law No.27 (3). 

“They offered me to teach at Unnes as a form of apology,” said Zakki on November 7, 2019. He eventually turned the offer down and demanded campus management issue a public apology in a press conference. 

The legal issue entangling Zakki started after publishing his report in Serat.id on an alleged plagiarism done by Unnes rector, Fathur Rahman, on June 2018.

Zakki found that Fathur’s scientific paper entitled “Language code in a santri’s social literacy: sociolinguistic study at Banyumas Pesantren,” suspiciously resembles a paper by Anif Rida entitled; “The use of language code in a santri’s social interaction and its implications for the modification of the Indonesian language: a sociolinguistic study at Banyumas pesantren.”

Fathur’s paper was published in 2004 by Yogyakarta State University’s third edition of Language journal, Literature and Teaching (Litera). Meanwhile, Anif Rida’s paper was published in the annual Atma Jaya Jakarta Catholic University’s linguistic conference proceeding (Kolita) in 2003.

Unnes rectorate filed a complaint against Zakki to the Central Java Police’s special crime directorate on July, 21, 2018. Police summoned Zakki twice in 2018 on October 16 and November 14. However, Zakki decided not to comply to police’s summoning as police failed to acknowledge the Press Law (UU Pers). 

“It was to protest police’s disregard on the Press Law,” he said. The second police summons was the last as he never received it again. “I never went through questioning since I never fulfilled their summons.”

Zakki followed it up by reporting the incident to the Press Council and formally and informally asked for legal protection and evaluation. “I would lobby it everytime I met the press council.”

He acknowledged that the problem is time consuming, physically and mentally exhausting as he searched for advocacy day and night after the first police summons. “It continues to this day, despite not as intense,” he said, “People would ask about the case at Semarang’s alliance of Independent Journalists’ secretariat.”

His parents were also victims as they shared the mental burden Zakki beared, despite his attempts to hide the fact that he had been reported to the police from his parents. News eventually reached his parents. “They told me what’s important is that I am in the right.”

Zakki continues his day as a journalist for Tirto.id in Yogyakarta. “I never thought of going to Yogyakarta, but there was an offer and I accepted it. I thought to myself, why not.” 

In a separate occasion, Unnes rector Fathur said the dispute between himself and Zakki is an old case and considers it done. “It’s an old case that’s completed,” he said in a Whatsapp text on November 8, 2019.

Fathur claims the two parties in dispute have come to terms even though Fathur refused Tempo’s request for an interview. We requested for another interview on November 11, 2019, but was never responded by the rector.

Ecky Lamoh, Musikus: Menjadi Tersangka karena Curhat di Facebook

SUARA Alexander Theodore Lamoh alias Ecky Lamoh meninggi ketika menceritakan ulang bagaimana ia terjerat pasal pencemaran nama baik dalam Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE). 

“Dua tahun saya dibayang-bayangi kasus ini, menjadi tersangka kemudian sidang, sampai putus kontrak, saya kehilangan banyak hal,” kata eks vokalis grup band Edane ini pada Senin, 25 Oktober 2019. 

Pengadilan Negeri Yogyakarta pada akhirnya memang membebaskan Ekcy dari jerat pasal karet UU ITE pada Rabu, 5 Februari 2019. Namun, kasus ini, kata dia, telah merenggut banyak hal termasuk keluarga.

Ecky dilaporkan ke Polda Yogya oleh kakak iparnya sendiri pada Oktober 2017 atas dugaan pencemaran nama baik dengan dasar Pasal 27 ayat 3 UU ITE. Pelaporan itu buntut atas keluhan Ecky yang diunggah di akun Facebooknya medio September 2015 dan Maret 2016. 

Cerita Ecky - TEMPO

Saat itu Ecky mengeluhkan laporannya soal dugaan penggelapan sertifikat tanah yang tak kunjung ditindaklanjuti polres Bantul sejak 2013 sampai 2015. Setelah membuat status itu, Ecky pun dilaporkan ke polisi pada Oktober 2017 dan langsung menjadi tersangka di bulan yang sama. Ecky mulai disidang di Pengadilan Negeri Bantul pada Juni 2018.

Direktur Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Yogyakarta yang menjadi pengacara Ecky, Yogi Zul Fadhli, mengatakan hakim mempertimbangkan membebaskan Ecky atas dasar pasal 310 KUHP. Karena bagaimanapun untuk penerapan pasal 27 ayat 3 UU ITE tetap harus dimaknai dan melihat induknya yakni pasal 310 KUHP.

Adapun kutipan pasal 310 yang dijadikan dasar hakim memutus bebas Ecky yakni bahwa tindakan penghinaan terjadi manakala seseorang menuduhkan sesuatu hal. Suatu hal itu berupa perbuatan kepada orang lain. Dari pemahaman itu, kalimat kuncinya adalah perbuatan.

Dan hakim, ujar Yogi, menilai status facebook yang dibuat Ecky tidak bisa dimaknai menuduhkan sesuatu dalam hal perbuatan. Sebab yang diposting Ecky hanya menerangkan soal status hukum terlapor dan ia menyebut ‘tersangka’. “Status Ecky itu tidak memenuhi unsur tafsir penghinaan sesuai yang diatur pasal 310 KUHP, maka unsur lain secara otomatis teranulir,” ujarnya.

Dalam persidangan itu, ujar Yogi, hakim memang mempertimbangkan bahwa dalam pasal 27 ayat 3 UU ITE mengatur soal ketentuan mendistribusikan status yang dituduh mencemarkan nama baik. “Unsur mendistribusikannya memang terpenuhi, karena secara faktual Ecky mengunggah itu, tapi kontennya sendiri terbukti tak mengandung penghinaan,” ujarnya.

Ecky Lamoh, Musician: Incriminated due to Facebook status

Alexander Theodore Lamoh, known as Ecky Lamoh, suddenly raised his voice as he recalled how he was charged for defamation under Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) Law No.19/2016.

“For two years my life was overshadowed by this case, from the suspect-naming up to the court session, to my contract termination. There were so many losses,” said the “Edane” former frontman on Monday, October 25, 2019.

The Yogyakarta District Court eventually acquitted him from all charges on February 5. However, the damage was done as the legal proceedings snatched so much of his life, including members of his family.

The police report was filed in October of 2017 by his own brother-in-law over a Facebook status Ecky posted in September 2015 and March 2016. The basis of his complaint was ITE Law Article 27 (3) on defamation.

Ecky’s Facebook status update mainly complained about an alleged land certificate embezzlement that was not followed up by the Bantul Police from 2013 to 2015. Ecky was immediately named a suspect the same month as the complaint was filed and was tried at the Bantul District Court in June 2018.

Ecky Stories - TEMPO

According to Ecky’s lawyer and Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute director Yogi Zul Fadhli, the judge took into consideration Article 310 Criminal Code (KUHP) for his client’s release, as it is the reference point prior to implementing Article 27 (3) ITE Law.

The legal basis of Article 310 deciding Ecky’s acquittal cites that the act of defamation takes place when someone accuses another individual of something, which is an action made against another person. The key to understanding the definition lies in “action” which the judge did not deem Ecky’s Facebook status as an action against another person.

The Facebook status that Ecky produced could not be interpreted as an act of defamation as his original post only explained the legal status of the one reported and mentioned ‘suspect.’ “Ecky’s status does not align with what article 310 Criminal Code defines as slander. It automatically annuls other elements,” said Yogi.

During the court session, Yogi explained, the judge did acknowledge that ITE Law’s article 27 (3) does oversee the status distribution element deemed as slander. “The element of distribution was met since factually Ecky did upload it. But the content itself does not contain slander,” he said.

Username 8

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?

Saidah Saleh, Ibu Rumah Tangga: Divonis Bersalah karena Dituduh Mencemarkan Nama Baik

GARA-gara nomor telepon yang lama tak pernah dipakai, Saidah Saleh Syamlan menjadi tersangka gara-gara dituduh mencemarkan nama baik. “Saya dituduh mencemarkan nama baik perusahaan tempat suami bekerja,” kata ibu rumah tangga asal Surabaya ini menceritakan ulang kisahnya pada Kamis, 28 November 2019.

Cerita ini bermula ketika kuasa hukum perusahaan tempat suami Saidah bekerja melaporkan pemilik nomor 08135780*** ke polisi pada 12 September 2017. Sebab, nomor ini mengirimkan pesan ke sebuah bank. Pengacara beranggapan pesan tersebut bernada mencemarkan nama baik sehingga mengakibatkan perusahaan kesulitan mendapatkan pinjaman dari bank.

Belakangan, polisi menyebut nomor tersebut atas nama Saidah Saleh Syamlan. Setelah serangkaian pemeriksaan, polisi menetapkan Saidah sebagai tersangka. Perkara ini pun meluncur mulus ke persidangan.

Masalahnya, Saidah mengatakan nomor tersebut sudah tak pernah ia pakai. Ia menuturkan memang sempat menggunakan nomor tersebut. Namun, karena telepon selulernya rusak ia pun menelantarkan nomor itu. “Saya juga tidak pernah mengirim WhatsApp seperti yang dituduhkan,” kata Saidah.

Saidah mengatakan, toh kalaupun memang dia yang mengirim pesan tersebut, maka percakapannya bersifat pribadi bukan masuk kategori pencemaran nama baik di ruang publik. 

Cerita Saidah - TEMPO

SafeNet sebagai organisasi yang mendampingi Saidah melihat ada beberapa argumen yang dipaksakan. Pertama, tidak ada alat bukti yang sah. Barang bukti berupa hasil tangkap layar bukanlah alat bukti yang sah dalam persidangan UU ITE. 

SafeNet melihat pemeriksaan lewat forensik digital atas perangkat yang digunakan untuk mengirim pesan Whatsapp haruslah dilakukan. Hal tersebut untuk membuktikan bahwa pesan itu dikirim oleh Saidah atau bukan.

Belakangan, kasus Saidah melenggang sampai meja hijau. Jaksa penuntut umum menuntut Saidah 1 tahun 5 bulan penjara penjara dan denda sebesar Rp 500 juta subsider 3 bulan kurungan sesuai pasal 27 ayat (3) jo Pasal 45 ayat (3) Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Kemudian Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya memutus Saidah bersalah dengan pidana penjara 10 bulan dan denda Rp 5 juta subsider 1 bulan kurungan pada Februari 2019. 

Saidah pun memutuskan mengajukan banding. Pada Agustus 2019, Pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya memutus bebas Saidah karena tidak ada bukti yang menguatkan bahwa ia mengirimkan pesan tersebut. “Saya belajar banyak dari kasus ini, dan saya yakin UU ITE memang hanya menguntungkan yang berkuasa, tumpul ke atas, tajam ke bawah,” kata dia.

Saidah Saleh, Housewife: Guilty of corporate defamation

Saidah Saleh Syamlan turned became a suspect of defamation due to a long-unused phone number. “I was accused of defaming the company where my husband works,” the housewife from Surabaya recalled on November 28, 2019.

Legal representatives of her husband’s company filed a police complaint on September 12, 2017, against a cell phone number for sending a text message to a bank, which the lawyer claims had defamed the company he represents. The text message they based the complaint is said to have made it arduous obtaining bank loans for the company.

It was revealed by police that the number belonged to an individual named Saidah Saleh Syamlan. Following a series of questionings, Saidah eventually found herself as a suspect. Her case met no hurdles to reach court.

However, Saidah defends that she had never used the cell phone number and that she abandoned using it any further after her cell phone was broken. “I never sent a Whatsapp message as I was accused of.”

She defends that even if the accusations were true, the text message should be acknowledged as a private affair and not defamation in a public space.

Saidah Stories - TEMPO

SafeNet, as Saidah’s legal representative, saw several forced narratives used against her. First is the invalid use of evidence in the form of a screen capture, which is not a credible piece of evidence in ITE Law court sessions.

SafeNet strongly argues that the Whatsapp message should undergo proper digital forensics investigation upon determining whether it was actually Saidah who sent the message or not.

Saidah eventually found herself tried in court that saw the public prosecutor charging her under ITE Law article 27 (3) jo article 45 (3) facing her with 1 year and 5 months imprisonment and an additional Rp500,000 fine, subsidiary to 3 months jail time. The Surabaya District Court sentenced her to 10-months in jail on February 2019.

Fortunately, Saidah’s case was dropped entirely on August 2019 after an appeal that sought her innocence for there were no strong pieces of evidence proving her wrongdoing. “I learned a valuable lesson from this case, which assured me that the ITE Law only serves those in power and is forceful towards common people.”