Link Search Menu Expand Document
Publications
  1. AP, LM, and CT Case (2010)

AP, LM, and CT Case (2010)

The first case occurred in 2010 involving public figures with initials AP (man), LM (woman), and CT (woman). The brief chronology of this case dates back to 2006, when AP gave his favorite editor named ‘Rejoy’ an external hard drive to edit his band’s music video which was done on a studio located in Capung, Bandung. While accessing the videos, ‘Rejoy’ found a video containing sexual relations between AP and CT, as well as another video with LM which then he

14 The terminology of “Revenge Porn” is problematic because the nuance of victim blaming. The “revenge” word is understood as an inflict hurt or harm for a wrong done, and so it implies that the victims deserve it because they have done something wrong. Although this writing does not provide an elaborate discussion on this issue, this article decided to use the terminology of NCII, which considered as the correct terminology.

15 EuroMed Rights, EuroMed Droits, “Online Violence Against Women and Girls”, https://euromedrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/RAPPORT_GBV_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf, accessed 21 January 2022.

copied without asking AP for permission. The video was published online by ‘Rejoy’, even though AP had asked him to delete it. Subsequently, this case received nation-wide media attention. Rejoy was legally charged with combination of layered alternatives, first Article 29 of Law No. 44 of 2008 on Pornography (Pornography Law) jo. Article 56 Paragraph (2) of Criminal Code (primary indictment), and Article 32 of Pornography Law jo. Article 56 Paragraph (2) of Criminal Code (subsidiary charge); second Article 30 Paragraph (2) jo. Article 46 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE Law) (primary indictment) and Article 27 Paragraph (1) jo. Article 45 Paragraph (1) ITE Law jo. Article 56 Paragraph (2) of Criminal Code or Article 282 Paragraph (1) of Criminal Code jo. Article 56 Paragraph (2) of Criminal Code (subsidiary charge).16 By looking at charges above, the perspective of the Public Prosecutor becomes clear. Article 30 Paragraph (2) of KUHP (2) jo. Article 46 Paragraph (2) of ITE Law concern parties who intentionally access other people’s computers or electronic systems with the aim of obtaining information or electronic documents without the owner’s permission. The Prosecutor chose to charge Rejoy with hacking instead of focusing on the act of distributing pornographic videos to the public.17 The Public Prosecutor did not show sufficient understanding that the main issue of the case was not about hacking but about illegal distribution of sexual material belonging to others, which was taken from the owner without consent. Rejoy had not been hacking someone’s electronic systems and/or documents without permission – only the distribution of sexual materials was done without permission.18 The Public Prosecutor’s showed no concern whatsoever for privacy rights of the three public figures and the fact that they had not given permission for the video distribution. They only focused on the pornographic content that tarnishes nation’s morale, thus stripping away the protection that should have been given to AP, LM, and CT as victims of OGBV practice.19

Rejoy was finally sentenced as being the main person who was responsible for the circulation of the video. However, at the appeal stage, the legal consideration

16 Bandung High Court, “Decision Number 68/Pid/2011/PT.BDG”, p. 2-16.

17 Indonesia, Law on Information and Electronic Transactions, Law no. 11

18 Kominfo, “Menkominfo Affirms Site Hackers Break the Law”, https://kominfo.go.id/content/detail/3461/menkominfo-asserkan-peretas-site-melanggarHukum/0/berita_satker , accessed 24 June 2021.

19 Bandung High Court, “Decision Number 68/Pid/2011/PT.BDG”, p. 2-16.

of the Bandung High Court demonstrates how the Panel of Judges failed to consider the question of permission for the distribution of the video, as well as the violation of the victims’ privacy rights which inflicted harm to the victims. The High Court of Bandung mostly repeated the considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Bandung District Court.20 In addition, they stated that distributing pornographic content caused national unrest and therefore had damaged the nation’s morale. The High Court did not look at the damage inflicted by Rejoice on the victims. CT and LM, as women public figures personally and professionally experienced real harm and damage since their reputation was shattered by the circulation of the video. The considerations of the judges at the fist-instance and appeal levels demonstrate that there are no legal benchmarks that requires prosecutors and judges to focus on victims’ protection related to harm and damages inflicted on victims by the distribution of explicit video content instead of the “national unrest that can disturb the public and tarnish the nation’s morality”.21

CT and LM were in an unfavorable position simply because they are women who culturally are expected to control their sexuality. They were ‘easy’ targets for Indonesian citizens and the online community who blamed and shamed them, meaning that they were the ones who had to make a public apology to their families and communities regarding their inappropriate behaviour. To make matters worse they both (together with AP as the male party) were charged with violation of Article 282 of KUHP on 8 July 2010.22 CT and LM’s even contested their continued status as suspects in a pre-trial hearing through their legal representatives, the Indonesian Law Enforcement and Oversight Agency (LP3HI) in June 2018. However, their plead for a dismissal of the case was rejected by the South Jakarta District Court on 7 August 2018.23 After approximately eight years of investigation since this case began, CT and LM’s status as suspects was maintained, making these two women living in uncertainty until today (2022).24 AP, as the male person in

20 Ibid, p. 18.

21 Ibid, p. 19.

22 detikNews , Ariel, Luna Maya and Cut Tari are asked to apologize and say ‘Don’t be imitated’”, https://news.detik.com/berita/d-1377015/ariel-luna-maya-dan-cut-tari-diminta-apologize-and-say-don’tcopy, accessed June 24, 2021 .

23 Hestana Dharmastuti, “This is the Journey of the Ariel-Cut Tari-Luna Porn Video Case for 8 Years”, https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4148410/ini-perjalanan-kas-video-porno-ariel-cut-dance-luna-for-8-years, accessed June 25, 2021.

24 Martahan Sohuturon, “The Fate of the Status of the Suspect Luna Maya and Cut Tari Diketok Judge,” https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20180807074305-12-320088/nasib-status-tersangka-luna-mayadan-cut-tari- clicked by the judge, accessed June 25, 2021. The pretrial lawsuit by the Indonesian Law

the circulated explicit content, was neither subjected to the same shaming and blaming nor under pressure from the public to make a public apology. However, he too, faced criminal charges. The difference is that the legal process of AP took only one year. AP received a prison sentence of 3.5 years, a fine of IDR 250,000,000.00 in July 2011, after having been detained since the start of the case around June 2010.25 This unequal treatment of male and women victims after publication of private explicit content by a third party, illustrate gender inequality within Indonesia’s patriarchal culture. Women are required to apologize in advance for their ‘bad’ actions and suffer from legal uncertainty because of their prolonged status as suspects. While AP, as the male party, was immediately arrested and put on trial. He did not face pressure to apologize to the public, even though he was one of the parties involved in the video. The shame experienced by the women in this case is much more intense. Even if they have not been found guilty by the court as their case has not been adjudicated yet, they have been found guilty by the media and Indonesian society.

Table of Contents