Jakarta Administrative Court Rejects Lawsuit Denying 1998 Mass Rape Case
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) has stated that it will not accept a lawsuit related to the denial of the 1998 mass rape case by Culture Minister Fadli Zon, who is the defendant in the case.
Presiding Judge Hastin Kurnia Dewi determined that the court accepts the defendant’s objection regarding jurisdiction to adjudicate (absolute competence), thereby declaring that it is not authorised to hear the lawsuit.
“The lawsuit of the plaintiffs is not accepted, and the plaintiffs are ordered to pay the court costs amounting to Rp233,000,” stated the Presiding Judge, as quoted from a copy of the verdict confirmed in Jakarta on Wednesday.
There are seven plaintiffs in the case: Marzuki Darusman, Fatia Nadia, Kusmiyati, I Sandyawan Sumardi, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), the Indonesian Chinese Youth Association (IPTI), and the Kalyanamitra Foundation.
The Presiding Judge explained that the object of the dispute in the case is a governmental administrative action in the form of a statement by Fadli Zon in the Ministry of Culture’s news broadcast Number 151/Sipers/A4/HM.00.005/2025 dated 16 May 2025.
The statement was also disseminated through the official Instagram account of the Minister of Culture under @fadlizon and the official Ministry account under @kemenkebud on 16 June 2025.
The object of the dispute reads: “…the TGPF report at that time only mentioned figures without solid supporting data, such as names, times, events, locations, or perpetrators. This is where caution and thoroughness are needed because it concerns the truth and the nation’s good name. We should not disgrace our own nation’s name. It is important to always adhere to legally and academically tested evidence, as is customary in historiographical practice. Especially regarding figures and terms that are still problematic.”
“This is as regulated in Presidential Regulation Number 190 of 2024 on the Ministry of Culture and Minister of Culture Regulation Number 1 of 2024 on the Organisation and Administration of the Ministry of Culture,” stated the Presiding Judge.
Based on the facts of the trial, the Court opines that all the work results of the Joint Fact-Finding Team (TGPF) on the May 1998 events were compiled in the form of a complete report and executive summary, which have been submitted to the government, specifically to the Ministry of Justice (see evidence P-2, T-31, T-38, and witness testimony from Sri Palupi).
Under the provisions of Article 1 number 9 of the Law on State Administrative Courts (Peratun), a State Administrative Decision (TUN) is a written determination issued by a TUN body or official containing a TUN legal action based on applicable legislation, which is concrete, individual, and final, and gives rise to legal consequences for a person or civil legal entity.
Accordingly, based on these considerations, the Court opines that Fadli Zon’s statement, in terms of legal application and its relation to the May 1998 events, does not give rise to rights or obligations for others and is not individual in nature.
The Panel of Judges opines that the governmental administrative action by Fadli Zon does not refer to a specific person, so the Court assesses that the object of the dispute does not fall under the provisions of Article 1 number 9 of the Peratun Law.
Therefore, the Presiding Judge is convinced to declare that the Jakarta PTUN has no absolute authority to adjudicate the dispute.
“Thus, there is sufficient legal reasoning for the Court to accept the defendant’s exception regarding the Court’s jurisdiction or absolute competence,” stated the Presiding Judge.
The statement that has become controversial, he said, is when he questioned the term ‘mass’ in the social case that occurred in May 1998, where, according to him, there should be clear facts and academic evidence, including who the victims were and where it happened.
“So there must be legal facts, academic evidence, who the victims are, where it happened, what the incident was, there must be data for that. That’s my personal opinion, this has nothing to do with history, and in democracy, differing opinions are allowed. If anyone has evidence that it’s called mass, please go ahead,” said Fadli Zon after delivering material at the Second Wave Retreat at IPDN in Sumedang, West Java, on Tuesday (24/6/2025).
Fadli Zon does not deny the occurrence of rapes in May 1998 but doubts that the case was of a mass nature. Because, according to him, if it is mass, it means it is a systematic, structured, and massive event.