Selesai pertikaian Mahkamah Sivil – Mahkamah Syariah

- Advertisement -

MUSLIM Care Malaysia Society (MCM) telah terpanggil untuk memberikan pandangan di dalam kes yang telah diputuskan oleh panel 5 Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mengatakan bahawa penukaran agama daripada Hindu kepada Islam bagi kanak-kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun adalah tidak sah dan batal. Terdapat 2 isu besar yang dapat digarap dari kes ini. Walau apapun pandangan MCM, MCM akur bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dapat disanggah. Isu pertama adalah berkenaan dengan kuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan isu kedua adalah pengIslaman anak-anak tanpa persetujuan salah satu ibu atau bapa.

- Advertisement -

Kes asal bermula di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh di mana Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Tuan Lee Swee Seng menyatakan di dalam penghakimannya “…The Syariah Court was a creature of state law and did not have jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of matters said to be within its exclusive purview and province. Only the superior civil courts, being a creature of the constitution, had that jurisdiction. The civil High Court accordingly had jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s case as she was challenging the constitutionality of the respondents’ actions in converting the children to Islam as well as asserting her rights under the Fundamental Liberties provisions in Part II of the Federal Constitution as well as under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961..

Berkenaan dengan pengIslaman anak-anak tanpa persetujuan kedua ibu bapa Yang Arif Hakim menyatakan seperti berikut “…The conversion of the children without the applicant’s consent not only violated art. 11 of the Federal Constitution but also international norms and conventions. For the applicant not to be able to teach her children the tenets of her faith was to deprive her further of her constitutional rights under arts. 5(1) and 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. The conversion of the children was therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect…”. (Rujuk kes Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors (2013) & CLJ 85).

Jelasnya di sini undang-undang sivil dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan lebih besar kuasanya daripada undang-undang Islam dan Mahkamah Syariah.

Kes ini kemudiannya dirayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan dan dilaporkan di Pathmanathan Krishnan v. Indira Gandhi Mutho & Other Appeals [2016] 1 CLJ 911. Di dalam rayuan tersebut Yang Arif Dato Balia Yusof Wahi menyatakan dalam isu Mahkamah Sivil dan Mahkamah Syariah “…Upon consideration of the decided cases and applying the ‘subject matter approach’, it is beyond doubt that the issue of the validity of the conversion of any person to the religion of Islam, and hence whether a person is a Muslim or not, is a matter falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariah Court. It is also clear, upon a plain reading of s. 50 of the Enactment, that the power to declare the status of a Muslim person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariah High Court. The learned JC, in declaring the conversion null and void, had violated the provision of s. 50(3)(b)(x) of the Enactment. The learned JC erred on the very first issue of jurisdiction which was taken by way of a preliminary objection in the judicial review proceedings before him…”

Yang Arif Hakim dalam menangani isu pengIslaman anak-anak tanpa persetujuan salah satu ibu atau bapa menukilkan bahawa “…The learned JC had further erred in finding that art. 11 of the Constitution had been violated. In holding that art. 11 has been violated because the respondent had been deprived of the opportunity to teach her children the tenets of her religion, the learned JC had run foul of the pronouncement made by the Federal Court in Subashini Rajasingam v. Saravanan Thangathoray & Other Appeals that art. 12(4) of the Constitution does not confer the right of choice of religion of children under the age of 18 in both parents. The exercise of the right of one parent under art. 12(4) cannot and shall not be taken to mean a deprivation of another parent’s right to profess and practice his or her religion or to propagate it under art. 11(1) of the Constitution…”

Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut ibu kepada kanak-kanak merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan berpendapat bahawa Mahkamah sivil mempunyai kuasa lebih tinggi daripada Mahkamah Syariah dan pengIslaman anak-anak mestilah mendapat persetujuan kedua ibu dan bapa.

Seusai kes diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan, terdapat ura-ura dari Kerajaan memerintah untuk memasukkan kembali Seksyen 88A The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] (Amended 2016). Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS) telah meminta penangguhan semasa Akta ini dibentang tempoh hari.

The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 88 the following section:

88a. (1) Where a party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the religion of any child of the marriage shall remain as the religion of the parties to the marriage prior to the conversion, except where both parties to the marriage agree to a conversion of the child to Islam, subject always to the wishes of the child where he or she has attained the age of eighteen years.

(2) Where the parties to the marriage professed different religions prior to the conversion of one spouse to Islam, a child of the marriage shall be at liberty to remain in the religion of either one of the prior religions of the parties before the conversion to Islam.”.

Hal berkenaan dengan bidangkuasa dan hak untuk menukar agama telah sebelum ini diselesaikan oleh kes Subashini Rajasingam v. Saravanan Thangathoray & Other Appeals (2008) 2 CLJ 1 di mana Yang Amat Arif Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam penghakimannya menyatakan bahawa “…In the present instance, there was no impediment for the husband to appear in the divorce proceedings in the High Court, albeit as a respondent, as the jurisdiction of the High Court extended to him, unlike the Syariah High Court which restricts its jurisdiction to persons professing the religion of Islam only. Thus, the contentions that the wife could submit to the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and have recourse to s. 53 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (‘1993 Act’) were not quite correct since the 1993 Act limits its jurisdiction to Muslims only. The wife, being a non-Muslim, had no locus in the Syariah Court. Both civil and Syariah courts are creatures of statutes, administered separately and independent of each other. Article 121(1A) of the FC makes a clear distinction between the jurisdiction of the Syariah and civil courts and, hence, with the separation of the jurisdiction, the respective courts cannot interfere with each other’s jurisdiction. Thus, the civil court cannot be moved to injunct a validly obtained order of a Syariah court of competent jurisdiction. The injunction obtained by the wife, although addressed to the husband, was in effect a stay of proceedings of the husband’s applications in the Syariah High Court, and amounted to an interference by the High Court of the husband’s exercise of his right as a Muslim to pursue his remedies in the Syariah High Court. Obviously, the law does not permit such interference…”

Kes Subashini yang dirujuk di atas menunjukkan bahawa pada ketika itu Mahkamah Persekutuan mengiktiraf bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah.

Manakala dalam menukilkan perihal penukaran agama anak-anak Mahkamah Persekutuan pada ketika itu menyatakan “…Either husband or wife has the right to convert a child of the marriage to Islam. The word ‘parent’ in art. 12(4) of the FC, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be decided by his parent or guardian, means a single parent. Hence, the conversion of the elder son to Islam by the husband under the Selangor Enactment did not violate the FC. Also, reliance could not be placed on s. 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 which provides for equality of parental rights since s. 1(3) of the same Act has prohibited the application of the Act to such persons like the husband, who had become a Muslim…”

Tetapi berlainan dengan kes Indira, Mahkamah Persekutuan kali ini berpendapat sebaliknya iaitu Mahkamah sivil mempunyai bidangkuasa lebih luas dan mendalam daripada Mahkamah Syariah manakala perkataan “parents” bermaksud kedua ibu bapa. Harus diingatkan bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak terikat dengan keputusan yang lalu.

Mahkamah Persekutuan berpendapat bahawa Artikel 12(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukkan bahawa “For the purposes of Clause (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian menunjukkan bahawa berlaku keterlibatan kedua ibu dan bapa dalam menentukan agama anak-anak mereka. Tetapi bagaimana pula dengan pihak satu lagi yang memilih agama Islam. Di sinilah ketidakadilan berlaku kerana jika satu pihak berkeras mahukan agama asal, maka yang Islam terpaksa menurut. Adakah ini dinamakan keadilan?

Walau bagaimanapun jika dirujuk kamus seperti Cambridge Dictionary atau Oxford Dictionary menunjukkan bahawa maksud “parents” adalah “..a mother or father of a person or an animal..”. Oleh yang demikian bagaimana pula parents di dalam kes Indira bermaksud kedua ibu dan bapa. Adalah menjadi hal yang sangat patut apabila kes tersebut dilapor di dalam teks undang-undang untuk umat Islam sama-sama mengkaji “reasoning” yang diguna pakai oleh Yang Amat Arif Hakim dalam memberikan keputusan kes Indira tersebut. MCM percaya oleh kerana ia adalah undang-undang buatan manusia maka akan ada “avenue” lain dalam mentafsir maksud mengikut keadaan semasa.

MCM berpendapat bahawa akidah anak-anak atau Muallaf perlu dijaga. Oleh yang demikian, satu pendekatan tuntas perlu dilaksanakan untuk membawa Islam ke peringkat yang lebih tinggi. Pada pendapat MCM walaupun Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengiktiraf agama Islam sebagai agama persekutuan tetapi ia seakan tidak cukup kerana Islam dicabar saban tahun. Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan seperti berikut :-

Religion of the Federation

3.(1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
(2) In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observances of ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang diPertuan Agong to represent him.
(3) The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shalleach make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the position of Head of the religion of Islam in that State.
(4) Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya; and for this purpose Parliament may be law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Sudah sampai masanya masyarakat Islam bersatu dalam memartabatkan Islam dan menyokong pindaan yang dibawa oleh Yang Berhormat Dato’ Seri Haji Abdul Hadi Awang. YB Marang tersebut mencadangkan satu Rang Undang-undang Ahli Persendirian (Private Members Bill) bernama Rang Undang-undang Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah) (Pindaan) 2016 seperti berikut;

(i) menggantikan Seksyen 2 dengan seksyen berikut; “2. Mahkamah Syariah akan mempunyai kuasa ke atas seseorang penganut agama Islam dan di dalam hal-hal kesalahan di bawah perkara-perkara yang disenaraikan di dalam Butiran 1 Senarai Negeri di bawah Jadual Kesembilan, Undang-undang Persekutuan.”; dan

(ii) memasukkan selepas Seksyen 2 dengan seksyen berikut “2A. dengan menjalankan undang-undang jenayah di bawah Seksyen 2, Mahkamah Syariah berhak menjatuhkan hukuman yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang Syariah berkaitan hal-hal kesalahan yang disenaraikan di bawah seksyen yang disebutkan di atas selain daripada hukuman mati.” Penting juga untuk diperhatikan bahawa cadangan pindaan Akta 355 juga hanya melibatkan peruntukan kesalahan- kesalahan sedia ada dalam enakmen jenayah negeri-negeri dan sama sekali tidak melibatkan kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah di bawah Senarai Persekutuan.

Adalah diharap bahawa pindaan tersebut dapat menyelesaikan pertikaian bidang kuasa antara Mahkamah sivil dan Mahkamah Syariah. Adalah menjadi harapan MCM agar Islam benar-benar dapat dimartabatkan dan tidak diperkotak-katikkan hanya dengan pemahaman undang-undang dan pentafisran yang berbeza-beza dari satu Mahkamah ke Mahkamah yang lain. Juga menjadi satu harapan MCM agar akidah kanak-kanak yang menukar kepada agama Islam dapat dijaga dan dikekalkan. Pada masa ini pendapat undang-undang adalah jika mahu berterusan dalam agama selain Islam adalah dibolehkan tetapi jika mahu menukar kepada agama Islam maka haruslah mendapat persetujuan pasangan yang bukan Islam. Jadi di manakah keadilannya bagi yang beragama Islam. Maka marilah kita berada dalam jamaah dan berusaha gigih memperkasakan Islam.

Muslim Care Malaysia Society
Cross Border Humanitarian Aid
Tuan Haji Zulkifli Wahijan
President

- Advertisement -