The Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN Jakarta) has rejected a lawsuit filed against Minister of Culture Fadli Zon concerning his statements about the evidence of the 1998 mass rapes. The PTUN judicial panel delivered its verdict via an electronic hearing on Tuesday, April 21st.
The court’s decision also upheld the defendant’s exception regarding the court’s absolute jurisdiction (kompetensi absolut). Consequently, the PTUN declared the plaintiffs’ lawsuit inadmissible and ordered the plaintiffs to pay court fees totaling Rp233,000.
Following this significant ruling, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) announced via its social media channels that a press conference would be held on Wednesday, April 22nd, to address the outcome.
According to the PTUN website, the lawsuit, registered under case number 335/G/TF/2025/PTUN.JKT, challenged an administrative or factual action by the then-Minister of Culture, Fadli Zon.
The plaintiffs, a coalition known as the Civil Society Coalition Against Impunity, comprise numerous civil society organizations and women’s rights activists. Their initial objective was for Minister Fadli Zon to retract his controversial statements and issue a public apology. However, the court’s verdict ultimately diverged from their hopes.
Marzuki Darusman, a prominent plaintiff and former chairman of the 1998 Fact-Finding Joint Team (TGPF 1998), expressed deep concern about the implications of this rejection. He warned that it could severely erode public trust in Indonesia’s legal system.
“The PTUN holds a highly essential position; it is a gateway for the restoration of public confidence in Indonesian law. Yet, the lawsuit was rejected, and this in turn becomes another gateway to the collapse of public trust in Indonesian law,” Marzuki elaborated, underscoring the gravity of the decision.
For the plaintiffs, this lawsuit was crucial as a form of condemnation, aiming to prevent government officials from making arbitrary public statements, especially when these statements concern severe human rights cases. They believed such a legal challenge was vital for accountability.
Marzuki further characterized the ruling as a “bare minimum” act that the state could have undertaken. “If the decision had been to accept the lawsuit, it would have been the minimal propriety, or bare minimum, that could judge the inappropriate behavior of an official,” Marzuki asserted during an interview with BBC News Indonesia journalist Silvano Hajid on the day the verdict was announced.
Therefore, when even this minimal propriety is not achieved, the public’s faith in Indonesia’s legal framework risks being completely extinguished.
Why did the Civil Society Coalition Against Impunity file the lawsuit?
This legal battle unfolded along a specific timeline, as documented by Amnesty International, beginning on June 10, 2025.
The controversy ignited when Fadli Zon, then a public official, denied the occurrence of mass rapes during the May 1998 riots in an interview with ‘Real Talk’ IDN Times.
This denial was amplified through a Ministry of Culture press release (Number 151/Sipers/A4/HM.00.005/2025) and social media posts on June 16, 2025. These official communications openly dismissed historical facts, delegitimized the TGPF report, and questioned the very term “mass rape.” Critics noted that these claims continued a pattern of previous denials regarding the tragic events.
Ultimately, on October 2, 2025, the lawsuit was formally registered. It challenged Fadli Zon’s official statements, which questioned the supporting data from the May 1998 TGPF report, categorizing them as an administrative action by the government. The legal proceedings spanned six months until the final verdict was delivered.
The lawsuit argued that Fadli Zon’s statements, which denied the mass rape incidents, directly contradicted the pro justitia investigations by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), the findings of the TGPF, and the consistent work of the Volunteer Team for Humanity since the outset of their efforts.
Amnesty International interpreted these actions as a potential obstruction of justice, contending that a person in a position of power was using their authority to disseminate information potentially containing falsehoods or misleading details concerning the May 1998 events, even as ongoing investigations and inquiries remained incomplete.
Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that Fadli Zon’s statements contravened Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights and Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts. They also warned that such statements normalize discrimination and structural violence against women in Indonesia.
Throughout the series of court hearings, the plaintiffs’ legal team submitted approximately 95 pieces of documentary evidence and presented five electronic proofs. They also called numerous expert witnesses, including Sri Palupi, a member of the TGPF assistance team; psychologist Livia Iskandar; administrative law expert Riawan Tjandra; constitutional law lecturer Herlambang Wiratraman; and historian Andi Achdian.
Additionally, compelling testimonies were heard from Maria Ulfa Anshor, the Chairwoman of Komnas Perempuan, and Wiwin Suryadinata, the mother of Ita Martadinata. Ita Martadinata was a victim of the 1998 rapes who was tragically murdered before she could testify before the United Nations (UN) in the United States.
During an earlier hearing on February 6, 2026, Wiwin Suryadinata’s powerful testimony resonated through the courtroom. “Killing, killing, killing! They had families; imagine being a mother who carried them, like me, or a father who raised that child (Ita Martadinata). It’s not just my child; it’s all the children in Indonesia. I represent all the mothers whose children were killed,” she declared, her words leaving a profound impact.
Read also:
- Fadli Zon claims 1998 May Riots rapes were ‘rumor’ and ‘lacked evidence’; women’s activists call it ‘manipulation and obfuscation of history’
- May 1998 Riots: ’26 years of denial of sexual violence against Indonesian women’
The Civil Society Coalition Against Impunity’s lawsuit centered on at least five key points:
First, the lawsuit served as a crucial form of resistance against the state’s persistent denial of grave human rights violations.
Second, it aimed to challenge the abuse of power, specifically when an official acts beyond their authority. The administrative actions taken by then-Minister of Culture Fadli Zon were not only deemed contrary to various laws, human rights principles, and the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), but evidence presented during the trial also revealed that Fadli Zon, as a state official, lacked the authority to issue the statements that formed the object of the lawsuit.
Third, the plaintiffs argued that Fadli Zon’s acts of denial were baseless and merely personal opinions. They asserted that he had abused his authority as stipulated in Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration.
Fourth, the plaintiffs’ team submitted 95 documentary exhibits and five electronic proofs, and called three expert witnesses and two factual witnesses during the proceedings. This substantial evidence aimed to demonstrate the legitimate interest of the plaintiffs in filing the lawsuit and to prove that the Minister of Culture’s statements violated numerous laws and the general principles of good governance.
Fifth, it was highlighted that during the trial, none of the experts or witnesses presented by the plaintiffs were ever rebutted by the defendant. Dr. W. Riawan Tjandra, an expert in State Administrative Law, affirmed that PTUN Jakarta inherently possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate administrative or factual actions undertaken by Minister of Culture Fadli Zon. Furthermore, psychologist Dr. Livia Istania provided crucial insights into the psychological impact and revictimization experienced by victims and their families as a direct consequence of the Minister of Culture’s statements.
Despite the setback of the rejected lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ team plans to hold consultations to determine the next steps and potential further legal recourse.
“Fundamentally, this is a court of ethics, essential for this nation to regain its self-respect and confidence in confronting the truth,” Marzuki concluded, reflecting on the broader implications of the verdict.
As a direct response to the PTUN’s rejection of their lawsuit, the Civil Society Coalition Against Impunity will proceed with its planned press conference on Wednesday, April 22nd.
This news will continue to be updated.