By: Aldia Putra) *
The case that ensnared Baiq Nuril began when he received a call from the Principal with the initials M in 2012. In the conversation, Kepsek M told about his relationship with a woman who was also known to be Baiq. Feeling harassed by the conversation, Nuril finally recorded it.
In 2015, the recording circulated widely in the Mataram community and made Principal M Geram. M then reported Nuril to the police for allegedly spreading the tape. M also mentioned that Baiq Nuril’s actions had embarrassed his family.
Nuril went through a legal process until the trial. The Mataram District Court Judge, West Nusa Tenggara, acquitted Nuril. However, the prosecutor appealed to the appeal level.
For the case, the Supreme Court then gave him a sentence and fined Rp. 500,000,000 for violating Article 27 Paragraph 1 of Article 45 paragraph 1 of Law Number 11/2008 concerning ITE.
Then Nuril submitted a PK. In the PK session, the Supreme Court decided to reject the PK Nuril application and decide Nuril must be executed in accordance with the previous verdict.
But finally the government also considered giving Amnesty to Baiq Nuril. The government through the Minister of Law and Human Rights (Menkumham) Yasonna Laoly said, based on the results of discussions with a number of legal experts and academics, the government finally considered that the amnesty could be applied in the case of Baiq Nuril Maqnun.
Yassona said, in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) conducted with law activists, practitioners and academics, concluded that amnesty could also be given to individuals who experience legal problems such as Baiq Nuril Maqnun.
His party acknowledged the existence of legal opinion stating that amnesty could only be given to cases involving political issues.
In this case, we can refer to Article 14 paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution which states that, the President gives Amnesty and abolition with due regard to the consideration of the House of Representatives.
On the other hand, the case that befell a teacher has aroused widespread sympathy and solidarity of the community, both nationally and internationally. This sympathy arose because the conviction of Baiq Nuril was considered an attempt to criminalize and contradict a sense of justice.
In fact, what Nuril did was aimed solely at protecting his honor, dignity and dignity as a woman.
The granting of amnesty to Nuril is certainly in line with the fourth program of President Jokowi’s Nawacita, namely increasing the protection of women from acts of violence.
Thus the government’s efforts to provide amnesty to Nuril are a form of government that is pro-people especially in the legal sector.
President Jokowi then sent a letter to the DPR to give consideration to the amnesty for Baiq Nuril.
The House of Representatives has also officially agreed that Jokowi give an amnesty to the ITE Law convict, Baiq Nuril. The agreement was taken at the 23rd plenary session of the V Year 2018/2019 session which was chaired by Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Utut Adianto, as head of the session.
Deputy chairman of the House of Representatives Commission III Erma Suryani Ranik said that her party had considered aspects of justice to give consideration to Amnesty for Nuril. Erma considered that Baiq Nuril was not a perpetrator, but a victim who protected herself from verbal and sexual violence.
The government’s efforts in giving amnesty to Baiq Nuril were welcomed by the Association of Victims of the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (PAKU ITE). Muhammad Arsyad as the head of the ITE Paku also argued that such a case of the ITE Law did not need to reach the President. Because according to him, the case should be resolved at the court level.
Arsyad acknowledged that there were many irregularities in Baiq’s case. Apart from the fine, the allegations directed at Baiq were also groundless. Baiq Nuril’s income as a teacher was Rp. 700,000, but the fine directed at Nuril reached Rp. 500 million.
The ITE nail noted that there were around 290 reports of violations of the ITE Law which were dominated by defamation cases over the past year. The obscurity of the article according to Arsyad was the reason for the many parties who were victims of the ITE Law.
Of course we hope that cases like this will not be repeated, so that no victims should be protected and then become victims and ensnared by the law.
) * The author is a sociopolitical observer