Research summary

This research focuses on the KTP case, handed down by the Constitutional Court in late 2017. In it, the Court decided that citizens were not required to select one of the religions recognised by the state – Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism – to fill in the religion column on their identity cards (KTP). Rather, they could choose to nominate another belief – including an indigenous religion. This study seeks to assess the impact of this decision and its contribution to debates about the position of religion in the Indonesian state.

In late 2017, the Constitutional Court made a landmark contribution to its religion-related jurisprudence. In the KTP case, the Court decided that citizens would no longer be limited to nominating one of the state-recognised religions on their identity cards, as had been required under statute. Although in its Blasphemy Law decision (2010), the Court observed that Indonesians are free to follow any religion they like, including indigenous beliefs, this is the first case in which the Court has upheld an application that deals squarely with this issue, and provides formal recognition of indigenous beliefs. This is significant because Indonesia is religiously diverse, and many Indonesians have beliefs that do not correspond with the six state-recognised religions. Followers of these religions have not enjoyed equal recog-nition as citizens and experienced state discrimination and social stigma, with most impacts felt in the sectors of edu-cation, employment and registration of marriage and birth.

Observers have long emphasised that the Constitutional Court lacks formal enforcement powers, and that it relies on public and government support to follow its rulings. While the Court’s decision in the KTP case was very much welcomed by human rights activists and religious indigenous communities themselves, concerns have been raised about the enforceability of the decision. Those who disagree with the decision (especially, but not exclusively, conservative Muslim groups) see it as going against the ‘national consensus’, crossing the boundaries of accepted definition of ‘religion’. They have so far seemed effective in pressuring the government not to implement the decision.

This case is highly significant and demands scholarly attention. The role of religion in the operation of the Indonesian state has always been controversial and, in particular, the apparent rise of the political influence of conservative Muslim groups has raised serious concerns about the future of Indonesian pluralism. The Constitutional Court has, for the most part, been quite inconsistent in its treatment of religion-related arguments and some fear that it might ultimately endorse some form of constitutional recognition of conservative interpretations of Islamic law. The KTP decision seems to allay these fears, because it formally recognises the validity of religions outside those recognised by the state, which has always been opposed by Muslim groups since 1950s.

Related publications Constitutional recognition of “Beliefs” in Indonesia “Kepercayaan” dan “Agama” dalam Negara Pasca-Reformasi