Monday, 02 November 2026
MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - The search of religious educational institutions in Sukoharjo and Karanganyar, in Indonesia's Central Java province, as part of an investigation into an arson attack on a restaurant raises more fundamental questions than the debate over police powers alone. When the public explanation for law enforcement action subsequently shifts towards the operating permit of a pesantren, the public is entitled to question its relevance. Arson and the administrative status of an educational institution are two separate legal matters. Conflating them risks obscuring the actual focus of the investigation while fuelling prejudice against the pupils and those responsible for the institution.
Central Java Regional Police stated that the search on 27 October 2026 was conducted under a court-issued warrant to locate a fugitive suspect in the arson case involving the Warung Mi Babi Tepi Sawah restaurant. However, subsequent statements also referred to the fact that the premises were not registered with Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs. The Deputy Governor of Central Java also raised questions about the licensing status of the Tahfiz House, an institution dedicated to reciting and memorising the Quran. Such information must be verified, but it belongs within a separate administrative process and must not be used as additional justification for criminal investigation measures.
From a legal perspective, Article 113 paragraph 3 of Law No. 20 of 2025 on Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) limits searches and seizures to objects and evidence connected with the alleged offence. A judicial search warrant does not grant the authorities unlimited powers to examine every activity taking place within an institution. Where an investigation concerns arson, the authorities must establish the suspect's whereabouts, the connection between the evidence and the alleged offence, and the grounds for criminal suspicion. The existence or absence of an operating permit does not prove that an individual was involved in arson.
The registration of pesantren institutions, meanwhile, is governed by Law No. 18 of 2019 on Pesantren and its implementing regulations. Any assessment of an institution's legal status must take account of the type of educational provision, the available documentation and the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Potential administrative shortcomings do not automatically turn an institution into a centre of criminal activity. Nor do they justify degrading treatment of its residents. If licensing irregularities are identified, the authorities must address them through a lawful, objective and separate administrative review.
The central concern is the possible shift in the focus of public debate. When members of the public raised questions about the early-morning search, the deployment of armed personnel and the questioning of children, answers were required concerning the procedures followed, the proportionality of the measures and the protection of fundamental rights. Discussing the institution's licensing status without addressing these concerns risks diverting attention from the substantive issues. Although this does not in itself establish deliberate intent to distract, the underlying problem remains. Indonesia's Ombudsman (Ombudsman RI) has previously emphasised that lawful powers must be exercised appropriately and that children are entitled to special protection.
Articles 28G and 28B of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia guarantee the right to security and children's right to protection. When pupils at a religious girls' school are questioned, the authorities must consider the risk of trauma, provide appropriate assistance and uphold the presumption of innocence. The possible involvement of certain individuals in a criminal offence must not lead to blanket suspicion being directed at the entire educational institution.
The police may explain the tactical requirements of an operation through a transparent risk assessment. However, information about potential dangers posed by a suspect does not release the authorities from their obligation to distinguish uninvolved residents, particularly children, from the actual targets of the investigation. The concerns raised by the institution's carers must be examined through video recordings, operational logs and an investigation by the police internal affairs division (Propam). Simply dismissing them through a press statement is not sufficient.
Central Java Regional Police should disclose the legal basis and scope of the search warrant, the list of seized items and the findings of its internal review. The Ministry of Religious Affairs may independently examine the institution's legal status without conflating its findings with the question of whether an individual is guilty or innocent in the arson investigation. Both legal processes must be conducted within their respective jurisdictions.
The credibility of law enforcement suffers when administrative issues are used to reinforce criminal suspicions. The police must pursue the arson investigation thoroughly. At the same time, the state has an obligation to protect children's rights and the dignity of educational institutions. Decisive action without clear regard for legal boundaries is not justice; rather, it creates room for arbitrary conduct. (IDNC)
By: Dr Farid Wajdi, S.H., M.Hum
(The author is the founder of Ethics of Care)
