41  participants attended  the discussion forum from  the Echelon 1 of Ministry of Religious Affairs officials including  the Directorate General of Islamic Guidance, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, and Hindu, Head of Legal Bureau, Director General of Hajj, and Inspector General, Echelon II of  the Ministry of Religious officials  in R & D and Training Agency, the Central Executive of Islamic Organizations, researchers and trainers of Religious Life Center for Research and Development and Training.  H. A. Shafi'i Mufid, MA, APU and Imam Syaukani, S. Ag, MH were appointed as speakers representing the special team formed by Center for Religious Life. The Team was aimed to make summary and important points of the Decision of the Constitutional Court.

Prof. H. Abd. Mas'ud Rahman, Ph.D., Head of Research and Development Center for Religious Life  in his remarks explaining that the activity was part of discussions of policy analysis that specifically aims to seek input for the following-up after the issuance  of the Constitutional Court decision No 140/puu-vii/2009 and to formulate recommendations and advice to policy makers. This discussion was aimed to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the Constitutional Court decision.

Prof. Dr. H. Atho Mudzhar, the Head of  R and D and Training Body in his remark  stated that the contents of the Constitutional Court's decision was relatively quite thick, so it is necessary to understand carefully the content of the decision and the background for the decision of the Constitutional Court. The objective of this careful study is to look at whether arguments underpinning the decision can be understood by the community. It is expected that there will be no longer objection to the decision, because the Constitutional Court decision No 140/puu-vii/2009 has been considered as final decision. Media reported that either Indonesian or foreigners have responded positively and negatively following the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision. The Constitutional Court Decision No. 140 states that the Act PNPS about religious defamation has been considered as constitutional. But the Constitutional Court argued that the Act needs to be improved to ensure / protect religious freedom and harmony, but before the passing of new law, Act PNPS can be imposed to avoid legal vacuum. He also stated that the substance of the Act PNPS must be included, even though a new law has been passed.

In addition, the meeting also gives a brief summary of Court Decision presented by Syafii Mufid, MA, APU and Imam Syaukani, S. Ag, MH. In his presentation Syafii expected participants of the meeting are able to understand and make sure the decision can be implemented in their respective organizations. He added that it is important to note that judges have different opinions to make decision. As a result, participant should anticipate how they can contribute to secure the decision.

One of participants of the meeting, Taufiqur Rahman from PP. PERSIS argued that his organization is obliged to secure the Act PNPS, but it is the act needs to be revised since it has not met the present or future situation. He added that the definition of religious defamation needs to be elaborated further. He also proposed that the upcoming revision of the act must include the issue of interfaith harmony.

Meanwhile, representatives from the NU Imdadun Rahmat considered Judicial Review process as event which needs to be appreciated, because the process can be used as a lesson learned for all. In addition, the process of Judicial Review will be able to resolve the differences in the realm of constitution and make all parties mature with regard to the decision. In this regard, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) strongly supported the decision made by Constitutional Court but Imdad asked that those who have proposed to Constititutional Court should not be regarded as threatening. Imdad also added that it needs to clarify which aspect of the decision will be revised and who will be revising. In this sense, there are many things that can be multi-interpreted. Multiple interpretations sometimes only benefit certain parties. MORA needs to have a relevant source to know revisions made by Constitutional Court.

Participants also proposed the Ministry of Religious Affairs to initiate a draft to revise RUU PNPS and the representatives of social and mass organizations agreed to follow up discussion by establishing partnership with the Ministry to campaign Constitutional Court Decision so that people fully understand the content of the decision