•  
  •  
 

Abstract

There are still many attempts to silence freedom of expression in Indonesia. One of the ways to silence the freedom of expression in Indonesia is Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP). This study analyzed at least three SLAPP cases in Indonesia: (1) the case of Prita Mulyasari vs. the Omni International Alam Sutera Hospital in Tangerang; (2) the case of Budi Heryawan as known as Budi Pego; and (3) the case of Nur Alam vs. Basuki Wasis. This study proposed two questions. First, what is the pattern and portrait of SLAPP in Indonesia? Second, how is the analysis of human rights law on the use of SLAPP in Indonesia? This normative legal research is a case-based research. It uses the case, conceptual, and statutory approaches with qualitative data. The study concludes that SLAPP in Indonesia is used against people who fight for their rights, who defend their selves against human rights abuses committed by third parties, and to experts whose testimonies are used by a court. The representation shows that SLAPP is an effort to shift the problem from the real perpetrator to the victim. The SLAPP puts the victim in a high-risk position; drains and distracts the victim; and postpones problem-solving. Second, the SLAPP is an act that contradicts and/or has an adverse impact on freedom of expression. Courts must be present to affirm that the state takes sides to protect freedom of expression.

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP): Ancaman terhadap Kebebasan Berekspresi

Abstrak

Pembungkaman terhadap kebebasan berekspresi masih terjadi. Salah satunya melalui Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP). Fenomena SLAPP terlacak, paling tidak, melalui tiga kasus yang dianalisis dalam penelitian ini, yaitu kasus Prita Mulyasari melawan Rumah Sakit Omni Internasional Alam Sutera Tangerang, kasus Budi Heryawan alias Budi Pego, dan Nur Alam melawan Basuki Wasis. Penelitian ini menjawab dua pertanyaan. Pertama, bagaimana pola dan potret penggunaan SLAPP di Indonesia? Kedua, bagaimana analisis hukum hak asasi manusia terhadap penggunaan SLAPP di Indonesia? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dalam bentuk analisis kasus. Pendekatan yang digunakan mengerucut pada pendekatan kasus, konseptual, dan perundang-undangan. Jenis datanya adalah data kualitatif. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama, SLAPP di Indonesia digunakan untuk melawan balik mereka yang memperjuangkan hak-haknya, mereka yang mempertahankan hak atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang dilakukan pihak ketiga, dan mereka yang keterangan terkait keahliannya digunakan oleh pengadilan. Potret SLAPP di Indonesia menunjukkan, SLAPP merupakan upaya untuk menggeser persoalan dari pelaku kepada korban, SLAPP memposisikan korban dalam posisi penuh resiko, SLAPP menguras dan mengalihkan perhatian korban, dan SLAPP menunda pemecahan persoalan pokoknya. Kedua, SLAPP adalah tindakan yang bertentangan dan/atau melanggar kebebasan berekspresi. Pengadilan harus hadir untuk menegaskan bahwa negara berpihak dalam melindungi kebebasan berekspresi.

Kata Kunci: kebebasan berekspresi, pengadilan, SLAPP.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a7

References

Books

Alexander, Larry, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

Carlsson, Ulla and David Goldberg, The Legacy of Peter Forsskal. 250 Years of Freedom of Expression, Nordicom, Sweden, 2017.

Fenwick, Helen, Civil Liberties and Human Rights 4th Edition, Routledge-Cavendish, Oxon, 2007.

Golash, Deirdre, Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, Springer, New York, 2010.

Howard, Erica, Freedom of Expression and Religious Hate Speech in Europe, Routledge, New York, 2018.

Kaelan, Filsafat Pancasila, Pandangan Hidup Bangsa Indonesia, Paradigma, Yogyakarta, 2002.

Melkonian, Harry, Freedom of Speech and Society, Cambria Press, New York, 2012.

Moon, Richard, The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2000.

O’Rourke, K.C. and John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression. The Genesis of a Theory, Taylor & Francis e-Library, London and New York, 2003.

Eko Riyadi, Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia. Perspektif Internasional, Regional, dan Nasional, PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, 2018.

Stuart, John, On Liberty, The Floating Press, 2009.

Other Documents

Barak, Aharon, “Freedom of Expression and Its Limitation”, Qasher, Issue 8, 1990.

Barker, John C,. “Common-Law and Statutory Solutions to the Problem of SLAPPs”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 26, Issue 395, 1993.

Brink, David, “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 21, Issue 1, 1992.

Business & Human Rights Resource Center, “Strategic Lawsuits against Publik Participation: Southeast Asia Cases & Recommendations for

Governments, Business, & Civil Society”, Briefing Note, 2020.

Canan, Penelope and George W. Pring, “Studying Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches”, Law & Society Review, Vol. 22, Issue 2, 1988.

Cosentino, Victor J., “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation: An Analysis of the Solutions”, California Western Law Review, Vol. 27, Issue 2, 1991.

Forsskal, Peter, “Thoughts on Civil Liberty,” paragraph 21, in http://www.peterforsskal.com/thetext.html.

Grossman, Claudio, “Challenges to Freedom of Expression Within the Inter-American System: A Jurisprudential Analysis”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 34, Issue 2, 2012.

H. Loewy, Arnold, “Freedom of Speech as a Product of Democracy”, University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 1993.

Kulk, Stefan and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, “Google Spain v. Gonzalez: Did the Court Forget about Freedom of Expression?”, European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 2014.

Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat, “Palu Hakim Kasus Saiful Mahdi: Sinyal Buruk bagi Kebebasab Berekspresi dan Berpendapat di Indonesia”, Press Release, 2020, in https://elsam.or.id/palu-hakim-kasus-saiful-mahdi-sinyal-buruk-bagi-kebebasan-berekspresi-dan-

berpendapat-di-indonesia/.

McBrayer, Lauren, “The DirecTV Cases: Applying anti-SLAPP Laws to Copyright Protection Cease-and-Desist Letters”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 2, 2005.

Mowrer, J. Reid, “Protection of the Public Against Litigious Suits (“PPALS”): Using 1993 Federal Rule 11 to Turn SLAPPs Around”, Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 38, Issue 3, 1998.

Pring, George, “SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation”, Pace Environmental Law Review, Vol.7, Issue 1, 1989.

Quinlan, Colin, “Erie and the First Amendment: State Anti-SLAPP Laws in Federal Court after Shady Grove”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 114, Issue 2, 2014.

Richards, Robert D., “A SLAPP in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of SLAPP on Social Network, Blogs and Consumer Gripe Sites”, DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 2011.

Riordan, Patrick, “Freedom of Expression, No Matter What?”, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 105, Issue 418, 2016.

Safenet Voice, “SAFEnet: Putusan Bersalah pada Saiful Mahdi Meruntuhkan Bangunan Kebebasan Akademik”, Press Release, 2020, in https://id.safenet.or.id/2020/04/rilis-pers-safenet-putusan-bersalah-pada-saiful-mahdi-meruntuhkan-bangunan-kebebasan-akademik/.

Sahid Hadi, “Bintang Emon is Getting SLAPP-ed”, Kolom, CNN Indonesia, June 19, 2020, in https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20200619113234-13-515121/bintang-emon-is-getting-slapp-ed.

Saner, Katelyn E., “Getting SLAPP-ed in Federal Court: Applying State Anti-SLAPP Special Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court After ‘Shady Grove’”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 63, Issue 3, 2013.

Scanlon, Thomas, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 1972.

The Economist, “Democracy Index 2019. A year of democratic seatbacks and popular protest”, A Report by The Economist Intelligence Unit.

Wilson, Paul D., “Of Sexy Phone Calls and Well-Aimed Goal Balls: Anti-SLAPP Statutes in Recent Land-Use Damages Litigation”, The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 2004.

World Justice Project, “Rule of Law Index 2020”, Annual Report.

_________________, “Rule of Law Index 2019”, Annual Report.

_________________, “Rule of Law Index 2018-2017”, Annual Report.

_________________, “Rule of Law Index 2016”, Annual Report.

_________________, “Rule of Law Index 2014”, Annual Report.

Legal Documents

Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia [Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945].

Law Number 9 of 1998 on Freedom of Expressing Opinions in Public [Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998 tentang Kemerdekaan Menyampaikan Pendapat di Muka Umum].

Law Number 39 of 1999 on Human Rights [Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Law Number 12 of 2005 on the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengesahan International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].

Supreme Court Decision Number 822K/Pid.Sus/2010 [Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 822K/Pid.Sus/2010].

Supreme Court Decision Number 225PK/Pid.Sus/2011 [Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 225PK/Pid.Sus/ 2011].

Supreme Court Decision Number 300K/Pdt/2010 [Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 300K/Pdt/2010].

Decision Number 559/Pid. B/2017/Pid. Byw [Putusan Nomor 559/Pid. B/2017/Pid. Byw].

Surabaya High Court Decision Number 174/PID/2018/PT SBY [Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya Nomor 174/PID/2018/PT SBY].

Decision Number 47/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Cbi [Putusan Nomor 47/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Cbi].

Decision Number 123/Pid.Sus-TPK/017/PN. Jkt. Pst [Putusan Nomor 123/Pid.Sus-TPK/017/PN Jkt.Pst].

Decision Number 1269/PID.B/2009/PN.TNG. [Putusan Nomor 1269/PID.B/2009/PN.TNG].

DOI

https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a7

Download

Share

COinS