Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines the contemporary debate on the recriminalization of blasphemy through a human rights perspective, with particular emphasis on the limits of religious freedom and the doctrinal foundations of modern criminal law. The research aims to evaluate whether blasphemy can be justified as a legitimate criminal offense within the framework of international human rights norms and to propose a coherent doctrinal reform aligned with harm-based principles. Employing a normative legal research method, the study utilizes statutory and conceptual approaches by analyzing relevant legislation, international human rights instruments, and legal doctrines concerning freedom of religion and expression. The data are analyzed using a descriptive-prescriptive technique, which not only explains existing legal norms but also formulates normative recommendations. The findings reveal that blasphemy laws, as traditionally constructed, suffer from significant doctrinal deficiencies, particularly in relation to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. These laws often rely on vague and subjective interpretations of offense, leading to inconsistent enforcement and potential violations of fundamental rights. The study further finds that the conflation of subjective religious offense with objective legal harm results in the overextension of criminal law and disproportionately severe sanctions. Consequently, blasphemy fails to meet the threshold of a legitimate criminal offense unless it is narrowly defined as conduct that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility. The study concludes by proposing a doctrinal reform that shifts the focus from protecting religious doctrines to safeguarding individuals, thereby ensuring a more balanced and rights-oriented legal framework.

Keywords

Blasphemy Law Religious Freedom Human Rights Criminal Law Reform Harm Principle

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Prasetya, R. B., Zainuddin, Z., & Mursyid, M. (2026). Recriminalizing Blasphemy? Human Rights Anlysis of Religious Freedom Limits and Doctrinal Reform of Offense Law. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 6(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v6i1.2382
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adjie, H. (2018). Hukum Notaris Indonesia. Bandung: Refika Aditama.
  2. Anshori, A. G. (2020). Lembaga Kenotariatan Indonesia: Perspektif Hukum dan Etika. Yogyakarta: UII Press.
  3. Ardiansyah, R. (2023). Digital transformation in land administration. Jurnal Hukum dan Teknologi Indonesia, 6(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jhti.v6i1.567
  4. Atmadja, I. D. G. (2021). Teori hukum dan keadilan substantif. Denpasar: Udayana University Press.
  5. Fadillah, N. (2022). Regulatory reform in notarial practice. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 19(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v19i3.321
  6. Gunawan, H. (2023). Verification standards in notarial deeds. Jurnal Kenotariatan Indonesia, 6(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.36722/jki.v6i1.789
  7. Hadi, S. (2020). Land disputes and legal uncertainty in Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 27(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss2.art5
  8. Hidayat, A. (2022). The advisory role of notaries in legal transactions. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 11(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.11.2.2022.155-170
  9. Kamal, M. (2021). Preventive legal protection in land disputes. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, 10(3), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v10i3.789
  10. Kurniawan, B. (2023). Notarial liability and legal accountability. Jurnal Arena Hukum, 16(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2023.01601.5
  11. Nasution, Z. (2022). Legal certainty and justice in Indonesian land law. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 29(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss1.art4
  12. Prasetyo, T. (2022). The paradox of legal certainty in Indonesian land law. Jurnal Yuridika, 37(3), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v37i3.34567
  13. Putri, D. A. (2023). Digital transformation in notarial services and its legal implications. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 12(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.12.1.2023.89-104
  14. Rahayu, S. (2022). The limits of notarial responsibility in Indonesian law. Jurnal Notariat, 5(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1234/jn.v5i2.456
  15. Santoso, U. (2021). Hukum agraria: Kajian komprehensif. Jakarta: Kencana.
  16. Siregar, M. (2023). Due diligence in land transactions. Jurnal Kenotariatan Indonesia, 5(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.36722/jki.v5i2.654
  17. Widodo, J. (2022). Legal awareness and informed consent. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 52(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no1.3456
  18. Yusuf, M. (2022). Accountability mechanisms in notarial law. Jurnal Arena Hukum, 15(3), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2022.01503.7