Lina Joy (Azlina bte Jelani) v KP Jab Pendaftaran Negara,MAIWP & Kerajaan Malaysia (Mahkamah Persekutuan).
Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy) memohon kepada Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara untuk mengeluarkan butiran status agama Islam pada Mykadnya atas alasan beliau telah menukar agama.
Permohonannya ditolak kerana beliau gagal mengemukakan perintah Mahkamah Syariah bahawa beliau telah murtad. Di peringkat Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan, kedua-dua Mahkamah memutuskan beliau perlu mendapatkan perintah Mahkamah Syariah kerana isu murtad adalah isu perundangan Islam dan Mahkamah Sivil tidak mempunyai bidangkuasa. Apabila dirayu ke Mahkamah Persekutuan, antara isu yang diketengahkan bukan sekadar kes permohonan menukar butiran dalam kad pengenalan, malah dengan sokongan kuat K-ll barisan peguamnya yang diketuai Datuk Cyrus Dass telah mendesak mahkamah membuka seluas-luasnya pintu murtad kepada orang Islam atas nama hak kebebasan beragama.
Majlis Peguam sekali lagi bukan sekadar bertindak sebagai pemerhati dengan diwakili Malek Imtiaz dan Haris Ibrahim, mereka juga bersama-sama NGO-NGO yang prejudis kepada Islam telah bertindak mengemukakan hujah dengan tema yang sama iaitu negara ini adalah sekular, Islam hanyalah ceremonial, sejarah negara ini bermula pada tahun 1957 dan Mahkamah Syariah tiada tempat dalam Perlembagaan, hak wanita Islam untuk berkahwin dengan sesiapa sahaja tanpa lelaki berkenaan memeluk Islam dan berbagai hujah yang bertentangan dengan hukum Syarak.
Antara akibat yang ;boleh melanda umat Islam sekiranya Mahkamah memihak kepada Azlina adalah:
Orang Islam boleh keluar Islam sesuka hati.
Kelak sesiapa sahaja yang dibawa ke Mahkamah Syariah untuk dibicarakan boleh terlepas hanya dengan menyatakan "Saya bukan Islam". Mahkamah Syariah tidak akan boleh mengadilinya. Mahkamah Syariah dengan sendirinya hilang fungsinya.
Membuka ruang untuk pengamalan Islam ditentukan oleh yang bukan pakar dalam agama. Persoalan Islam akan ditentukan oleh para hakim Mahkamah Sivil yang bukan pakar dalam perundangan Islam (termasuk Hakim bukan Islam).
Pandangan ulama atau fatwa tidak lagi diperlukan dalam menentukan persoalan berkaitan Islam.
Membuka ruang untuk Islam diamalkan mengikut kepercayaan dan pemahaman individu dan tidak boleh dikawalselia oleh majlis Agama.
Tiada siapa boleh mempersoalkan amalan orang Islam yang berbeza seperti sembahyang 3 waktu, menolak hadith, berkhalwat dan lain-lain lagi.
Jenayah dalam Islam seperti minum arak, berzina dan berjudi tidak boleh dihukum.
Pemahaman dan pengamalan agama untuk anak-anak dewasa tidak lagi boleh ditentukan oleh ibu bapa. Ibu bapa tidak boleh lagi 'memaksa' anak-anak terutama yang melebihi umur 18 tahun mengamalkan cara hidup Islam atau 'memaksa' mereka beragama Islam. Ini kerana Perkara 11 Perlembagaan boleh ditafsirkan sebagai membenarkan seseorang memeluk agama pilihannya dan mengamalkannya mengikut pilihannya.
Kalliamal A/P Sinnsamy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Kerajaan Malaysia (Kes Allahyarham Mohamad @ Moorthy bin Abdullah-Mahkamah Rayuan)
Kes ini berlaku pada hujung tahun 2005 apabila Kalliamal enggan menerima hakikat bahawa arwah suaminya telah memeluk agama Islam semasa hayatnya. Walaupun pihak berkuasa MAIWP berhak untuk mengebumikan jenazah Mohamad tanpa perintah mahkamah Syariah atau Mahkamah Sivil, namun bagi mengelakkan ketegangan yang berterusan, pihak MAIWP telah dinasihatkan untuk menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil sekalipun Mahkamah Syariah telah memberikan perintah pengkebumian mengikut hukum syarak lebih awal. Dapat dilihat bahawa MAIWP adalah berkeyakinan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi akan mengiktiraf bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah dalam menentukan pengesahan pemelukan Islam. Sebagaimana yang dihujahkan oleh peguam MAIWP dan Peguam Kanan Persekutuan, Mahkamah Sivil tidak boleh mengganggu keputusan Mahkamah Syariah berdasarkan Perkara 121(1A).
Sebagaimana yang diduga K-ll yang disokong kuat oleh media massa mengasak hebat MAIWP dan Mahkamah Syariah. Tohmahan mereka adalah orang bukan Islam tidak mendapat keadilan sewajarnya (no remedy) dalam kes sebegini. Mereka langsung tidak membangkitkan isu hak Mohamad yang telah memeluk Islam dan hak MAIWP yang menjalankan kewajiban dan tanggungjawabnya bagi pihak Yang DiPertuan Agong sebagai ketua agama bagi Wilayah Persekutuan, sebaliknya yang digembar-gemburkan adalah hak Kalliamal sebagai isteri untuk mencabar kesahan pemelukan Islam oleh suaminya.
Kes ini mencetuskan krisis perlembagaan yang serius sehinggakan 6 orang menteri kabinet bukan Islam mengemukakan memorandum menuntut supaya perkara 121 (1A) dimansuhkan. Ternyata itulah sebenarnya hakikat perjuangan mereka - sekalipun mempunyai bidangkuasa yang terhad, kedaulatan mahkamah Syariah hendak dihapuskan!
Walaupun tewas di Mahkamah Tinggi, mereka tetap meneruskan perjuangan ke peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan di mana mereka juga mencabar Kedaulatan Islam, kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah dan menghujahkan bahawa Malaysia adalah negara sekular yang mendaulatkan mahkamah sivil dalam apa bentuk pertikaian undang-undang. Mereka juga berhujah bahawa masyarakat bukan Islam tidak boleh tunduk atau mengiktiraf kekuasaan pihak berkuasa agama Islam dan jauh sekali dari mengiktiraf bidangkuasa kepada Mahkamah Syariah. Adalah dipercayai kes ini tidak akan berakhir di Mahkamah Rayuan. Mereka akan terns menggugat kedaulatan Islam dan Mahkamah Syariah hinga ke Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Haris Ibrahim hadir sebagai peguam pemerhati bagi pihak Majlis Peguam juga telah berhujah panjang lebar bahawa Mahkamah Syariah tiada bidangkuasa untuk memutuskan kes tersebut. Manakala di Mahkamah Rayuan, Malek Imtiaz dan Haris yang juga peguam pemerhati bagi Majlis Peguam telah memfailkan hujahan bertulis yang memperteguhkan kedudukan negara ini sebagai negara sekular dan memperlekehkan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah di negara ini.
Abdul Kahar bin Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (Mahkamah Persekutuan).
Seorang lagi pelopor ajaran sesat yang mengaku menjadi rasul bagi kalangan orang Melayu. Beliau telah ditangkap oleh MAIS dan telah dihadapkan ke Mahkamah Syariah. Namun begitu, beliau mengambil pendekatan yang sama seperti dalam kes Sulaiman Takrib dengan mencabar undang-undang jenayah Syariah di negeri Selangor atas alasan negeri-negeri tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menggubal undang-undang jenayah. Kes ini belum dibicarakan. Peguamnya adalah rakan seperjuangan Haris dan Malek Imtiaz, Edmund Bon.
LANGKAH-LANGKAH KE ARAH MEMPERKUKUHKAN ISLAM
a. Memperbetulkan kefahaman semua pihak terutama sekali yang terlibat dalam urusan pemerintah (Kerajaan, Kehakiman dan Perundangan) mengenai kedudukan Islam dalam Perlembagaan Persekuruan sebagai Agama Persekuruan bukan sekadar agama rasmi.
b. Menyedarkan semua pihak yang terlibat dalam pemerintahan negara sama ada Kerajaan, Kehakiman atau Perundangan akan kewajipan untuk melaksanakan ikrar YDPA bagi mempertahankan Islam.
c. Islam perlu dijadikan asas pertimbangan dalam penggubalan dasar-dasar, peraturan dan undang-undang Negara.
d. Penafsiran perlembagaan dan undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa perlu dibuat berasaskan Islam dan bukannya pemahaman barat.
e. Menyedarkan semua pihak bahawa sebarang usaha untuk memperteguhkan kedudukan Islam di Negara ini adalah dilaksanakan dalam perspektif Perlembagaan - bagi mempertahankan Islam.
f. Peranan Peguam Muslim ; Peguam-peguam Muslim perlu mempersiapkan diri dengan mempertajamkan fikiran dan memantapkan hujah untuk menggalas tanggungjawab menghadapi golongan yang agresif berusaha untuk menghakis Islam. Sikap mementingkan kesenangan diri dan kemewahan hidup perlu dihindari demi memelihara kedaulatan Islam dan kesucian aqidah umat Islam. Peranan ini bukan lagi hanya perlu ditanggung oleh para ustaz, tok-tok guru pondok dan para pendakwah atau penceramah bebas. Para peguam perlu menerajui ummah untuk menghadapi ancaman yang sedang melanda umat Islam seluruh dunia ini.
KESIMPULAN
Professor Muhammad Imam yang banyak melakukan kajian mengenai kedudukan Islam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia semasa bertugas di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa membuat kesimpulan berikut dalam salah satu artikelnya -
"Article 3(1) is not a mere declaration but imposes a positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam; give effect by appropriate state action to the Injunctions of Islam; and enable, facilitate and encourage Muslims to order their lives and practise according to Islamic injunctions, spiritual and mundane alike."
Rujukan
1. Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
2. Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Lain-Lain v Fatimah bte Sihi & Lain-lain [2000] 5 MLJ 375
3. Kamariah bte Ali Iwn Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan.
4. Che' Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor. (1988) 2 MLJ 55.
5. Kedudukan Islam Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia Tan Sri Profesor Ahmad Ibrahim
6. Islam Dalam Perlembagaan; Pror. Dr. Abd. Aziz Bari.
7. Tun Mohamed Suffian "An Introduction to the Legal System in Malaysia".
8. Tun Mohd Salleh Abas; "Constitution, Law and Judiciary"
9. S Abdul A'la Ma-dudi; The Islamic Law and Constitution.
10. Prof. Muhammed Imam; Freedom Of Religion Under Federal Constitution Of Malaysia - A Reappraisal
11. White Paper on the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals, 1957.
12. Federation of Malaya Legislative Council Debates (13th & 14th meetings of the Second Session of the Second Legislative Council).
LAMPIRAN
MLC: Malaysia is not an Islamic State, says Tommy Thomas
Friday, 18 November 2005,23:00 Contributed by Loo Lai Mee, LexisNexis
KUALA LUMPUR, Fri: Lawyer Tommy Thomas today told a packed hall at the Malaysian Law Conference that history shows that Malaysia is a secular state.
Tommy's paper on 'Is Malaysia an Islamic State?' traces the historical birth of the Constitution from pre-Merdeka days to its current position. From various documents, he showed evidence that the intention and will of both the drafters and people in constituting Malaya was to create an independent and secular nation that will protect and defend the rights of all citizens.
The constitution, he said, was a 'give and take compromise' which became the 'social contract' between the races. He said that the constitution "reflected a microcosm of the conflicting interests inherent in Malaya's plural society... it also mirrored the social and political conditions of the time and the desire of the Alliance leaders for national unity and political stability as nationhood loomed".
Tommy added that in the run-up to Merdeka and adoption of the Merdeka constitution, both the leaders and the people were first and foremost committed to achieve consensus and compromises, particularly on communal issues. Everyone concerned from the British, the Alliance Party, the Malay Rulers and the majority of the Reid Commission and in particular, our Bapa Kemerdekaan Tunku Abdul Rahman, first as a Chief Minister and then independent Malaya's first Prime Minister, took great pains to expressly declare that Malaya is a secular state.
Interpretation of the constitution
"No one had suggested in the period leading up to 31 August 1957 that the expression "Islam is the religion of the Federation" in article 3 of the Federal Constitution means that Islam is the State religion", said Tommy. All the commentators who have studied the issue, most of whom are Malaysia's leading constitutional scholars and/or Islamic law experts such as Prof LA Sheridan, MB Hooker and Prof Ahmad Ibrahim, to name a few, are unanimous of the opinion that 'article 3 has a limited meaning and scope, and it certainly does not constitute Malaysia an Islamic state.
As a matter of fact, Tommy said prior to the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were adamant that Islam was not going to be the State religion of the new Federation. This issue has been correctly stated by the then Supreme Court, in a 5-member panel, in the landmark case of Che Omar bin Che Son v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55 that article 3 has a limited meaning that the Founding Fathers had intended, expressly stating that Malaysia is a secular nation.
Dr Mahathir's 29 September 2001 statement
Therefore, he said that the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir's statement on 29 September 2001 during his Opening Address to the Gerakan Party's 30th national delegates conference that Malaysia is an Islamic country was not accurate. His best guess was that it was 'made purely for political considerations, divorced from the constitutional position'. Fortunately, the results of the 2004 General Elections suggest that the electorate was hardly concerned about the issue seeming to content in accepting Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's concept of Islam Hadhari, which does not mention that Malaysia is an Islamic state.
Tommy expressed the hope that "having regard to the delicate and sensitive nature of this issue in plural Malaysia ... [the issue] will not be resurrected, that the social contract agreed to in 1957 and reaffirmed in 1963 would continue to operate for generations to come, and Dr Mahathir's 2001 statement be consigned to historical oblivion.
Constitutional Interpretation in a Globalised World
In another interesting paper, Prof Dr Shah Saleem Faruqi said that the Malaysian judiciary as a moral and not merely a legal, institution should not avoid or evade sensitive constitutional issues when asked to question central government's powers.
He said that Malaysian courts, as in many other countries, 'speak boldly but act timidly'. He explained that such an approach needs to change in an age when human rights have been globalised, when "injustice anywhere is regarded as a threat to justice everywhere."
He said that "a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to the interpretation of the basic charter's provisions should be adopted.
"Judges should be receptive to the felt necessities of the times and their interpretations should show suppleness of adaptation to changing needs. They should adjust legal principles to changing social conditions and should assist in social engineering as in other countries," said Faruqi.
Judicial attitudes must change
Judicial attitudes over the past 48 years have not been entirely consistent. Nevertheless,
some cautious generalisations can be made
1. Constitutional supremacy merely notional - Faruqi said: "Over the last 48 years, Malaysian courts have shown extreme reluctance to invalidate parliamentary legislation on the ground of constitutionality. The judges seem to be steeped in the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy which has no legal basis here."
2. Reliance on English philosophy of legal positivism.
3. Reliance on separation of powers to refuse judicial review - Faruqi submitted that the motive force of the Malaysian Constitution has been wrongly interpreted to mean strict separation of, instead of in a balance amongst the various organs of State. Power of one organ was meant to check the power of another.
4. Gradations amongst human rights.
5. Preference for English precedents over precedents from US and India - American and Indian precedents, which should be more persuasive because of similar supreme constitutions, are brushed aside as too idealistic.
6. Unreviewable discretionary powers - which has caused the ideals of the rule of law to be set aside.
7. Constitutional issues reduced to issues of administrative law - It is unfortunate as sometimes the highest court chose to dismiss constitutional issues summarily and went on to decide the case on the principle of ultra vires in administrative law instead.
8. Treating the Constitution as sui generic - Malaysian judges are generally reluctant to view the constitutional jurisprudence and the exhilarating developments in constitutional law in countries like India, USA and Australia. They hold that every Constitution is sui generic - a class by itself. It must be interpreted within its own four walls and according to the nation's prevailing conditions.
9. Public law private law dichotomy.
10. Locus standi
11. International law - the enforceability of international law on human rights poses problems for our courts because in Article 160(2) of the Constitution the definition of 'law' does not make any reference to international law. However this flaw in the law can be remedied by creative interpretation of Article 160(2). The Article states that "law" includes written law, the common law and any custom or usage having the force of law. The word 'includes' implies that the definition is inclusive, not exclusive. There is scope for including other elements like international treaties into our concept of law.
12. Restrictive interpretation of the right to personal liberty -Through judicial interpretation of the constitutional provision, the courts can expand the horizons of freedom or narrow them down further.
13. Article 7 - the rule against double jeopardy has been subjected to so many exceptions that one is left wondering about the real worth of this immunity.
14. Article 8 - the unsatisfactory application of this article has caused the guarantees of Part II amenable to restriction, not only by Parliament, but also by the executive acting under legislative powers delegated to it during an emergency by Parliament.
15. Special powers legislation - What is lacking is a judicial willingness to apply objective tests to subjective and wide powers granted by statutory formulae in such legislation as the Internal Security Act. The area of non-justiciable executive powers and discretions remains rather large and is showing no signs of abating.
16. Islam - On issues which have any direct or indirect connection with Islam, the federal courts use Article 121(1 A) as an excuse to refuse jurisdiction. This is so even though in many of the cases that have ended up in the superior courts, fundamental rights and the constitutional validity of legislation are involved. Specifically, many apostates and those declared to be deviants have cried out for constitutional protection. A great deal of legislation by State Assemblies on 'Islamic matters' appears violative of federal-state division of powers. But the courts remain silent.
Winds of change
Fortunately, in some areas winds of change are blowing. It appears that the Constitution is moving from the peripheries to the centre. The successful habeas corpus application in Abdul Ghani Haroon and Gobalakrishnan v Ketua Polis Negara (2001) and Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] 1MLJ 261, said Faruqi, have aroused hope that the courts are willing once again, as they were for a short period of judicial renaissance in the mid eighties, to put the supreme Constitution on the high pedestal on which it was placed when Malaya began its tryst with destiny.
Whether the Constitution will, in the years ahead, become the sail and anchor, the chart and compass of the nation remains to be seen
* Kertas Kerja ini dibentangkan dalam Seminar Islam dari Sudut Undang-Undang Dan Perlembagan Malaysia: Isu Murtad anjuran Gabungan Persatuan Profesional Kelantan dan Kolej Islam Antarabangsa sultan Ismail Petra (KIAS) , di Hotel Perdana, Kota Baharu, Kelantan, pada 2hb. Sep, 2006.
Disiarkan semula dengan izin penerbit Dian Darulnaim Sdn Bhd
No comments:
Post a Comment