The verdict for the Stella Monica case was out yesterday (14 December). The court acquitted Stella of slander charges under the ITE Law. 

Judge Imam Supriyadi, who read out the verdict, stated that Stella was not found guilty of committing a criminal act of defamation against the L’Viors beauty clinic in Surabaya.

Stella in October was charged with Article 27 paragraph (3) jo. Article 45 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law after she posted her complaint against the beauty clinic. Had she been convicted, she would have been sent to prison for one year.

Responding to her innocent verdict, Stella told TFR that she is deeply grateful, while thanking those who supported her. 

“I would [also] like to thank the judges at the Surabaya District Court who have stated in detail that each of my posts does not contain elements of defamation or insult to L’Viors Surabaya clinic. Hopefully, in the future, this can be an example for consumers as well as other judges whenever they were to give a [similar] decision,” she said. 

TFR also reached out to Stella's legal counsel Habibus Salihin. He emphasised that Stella did not mention any name, but only tagged the clinic’s account. Therefore, it cannot be considered defamation because it was addressed to the clinic (which is a corporation/company), not an individual. In fact, Article 27 paragraph (3) solely regulates attacks on a person's feelings or honour. 

Habibus also shared that he once suggested restorative justice to settle the dispute. However, in order to do so, the public prosecutor said that Stella should issue a written apology. They then decided to reject the request because in the penal law, an apology could be perceived as evidence that may incriminate the accused.  

As the legal counsel went into more details, he also found that the one reported Stella was dr. Irene who got the authority from Budi Santoso. According to the law, only those in the board of directors or at the managerial levels could make a lawsuit under the name of a company. In this case, Budi Santoso is neither the director nor a managerial member of the clinic - he was the major shareholder of the clinic who does not have any rights to issue a power of attorney to dr. Irene. 

“As a customer, Stella has the right to voice her complaint and opinion. As long as it is in the form of a review based on her empirical experience, it cannot be considered as defamation or insult. In addition, according to the National Consumer Protection Agency, a consumer has the right to say anything about a goods/service as long as it has been paid,” Habibus elaborated.

Hence, one of the few things that the judges took into consideration before the verdict is that the content that Stella posted is solely a review containing complaints. 

Lastly, Habibus said that as an attorney, he hopes that the government could further educate law enforcement officers regarding the ITE Law, especially Article no 27 paragraph (3). This is important to prevent similar cases of criminalisation under the law. 

“Actually, we have a joint decree, which is a guideline regulating the implementation of the ITE Law. However, there is still an ongoing debate surrounding this decree as the law enforcement officers themselves, be it the police and those in the judiciary and court system, do not implement the decree in the same wavelength,” he explained.

“It is the government’s duty to educate in order to reach the same understanding, so law enforcers will not make use of the ITE Law to wrongly prosecute people who have different opinions,” Habibus concluded.