Reforming Indonesia’s National Health Insurance Through Debt Relief

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The government’s plan to write off Rp 26.47 trillion in overdue BPJS Kesehatan contributions is more than a technical fiscal decision—it is a defining moment for Indonesia’s national health insurance system. The proposed policy, reportedly awaiting final approval, touches on three fundamental issues: social justice, financial sustainability, and the state’s responsibility in guaranteeing access to healthcare.

 

At its core, the National Health Insurance (JKN) program was established to ensure that healthcare is not a privilege, but a right. In principle, it embodies the constitutional mandate that every citizen deserves access to medical services. Yet, in practice, millions of participants have fallen into inactive status due to unpaid premiums. For many, arrears accumulated not out of deliberate negligence but because of economic hardship, job loss, informal employment instability, or administrative barriers. When contributions go unpaid, access to healthcare services can be suspended, placing vulnerable families in an even more precarious position.

 

From a humanitarian perspective, the proposed write-off offers relief to millions of Indonesians. It provides an opportunity for inactive participants—particularly low-income, informal sector workers—to regain access to essential healthcare without the burden of overwhelming debt. In times of rising living costs and economic uncertainty, such a policy signals that the state prioritizes public welfare over rigid financial enforcement. It reframes the government not as a debt collector, but as a social protector.

 

However, this policy also raises critical concerns about the long-term sustainability of BPJS Kesehatan. The JKN system has historically faced financial pressure due to the imbalance between collected premiums and healthcare claims paid out. The existence of massive arrears reveals deeper structural issues: inconsistent premium compliance, weaknesses in contribution collection mechanisms, and outdated or fragmented participant data. Writing off Rp 26.47 trillion may resolve an administrative backlog, but it does not automatically solve the underlying systemic challenges.

 

There is also the issue of fairness. Millions of Indonesians have consistently paid their premiums despite economic difficulties. For them, a blanket write-off could appear inequitable, potentially creating a moral hazard where participants perceive that non-payment carries little consequence. If not carefully designed, the policy may unintentionally weaken payment discipline in the future. This is why the government must ensure that any debt relief mechanism is targeted—limited to genuinely vulnerable groups verified through accurate and integrated social welfare data.

 

The success of this policy ultimately depends on accompanying structural reforms. First, the government should strengthen data integration across ministries and agencies to ensure accurate classification of beneficiaries and contributors. Second, BPJS Kesehatan must modernize its collection and monitoring systems, possibly leveraging digital tools to track contributions in real time and reduce administrative gaps. Third, public education campaigns are needed to reinforce the principle that JKN is built on shared responsibility: solidarity works only when contributions are consistent.

 

Moreover, policymakers must treat this write-off not as a one-time political gesture, but as part of a broader reform agenda. Sustainable universal health coverage requires predictable funding, improved governance, and transparent accountability. Without these, similar arrears could re-emerge in the future, forcing the state into repeated cycles of financial forgiveness.

 

Rp 26.47 trillion is a significant figure, but the real issue goes beyond numbers. It reflects the tension between compassion and fiscal prudence, between social protection and institutional discipline. If implemented carefully and paired with systemic improvements, the policy could strengthen public trust in the national health insurance system. If handled poorly, it risks undermining financial stability and fairness.

 

Ultimately, the government faces a delicate balancing act: ensuring healthcare access for the most vulnerable while preserving the integrity and sustainability of Indonesia’s universal health coverage system.

By : K&Co - February 11, 2026

Manipulated Exports, Broken Oversight

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The alleged manipulation of POME (Palm Oil Mill Effluent) exports, which reportedly caused state losses of up to Rp14 trillion, is not merely another corruption case. It reflects deeper structural weaknesses in Indonesia’s trade governance system—weaknesses that allow regulatory loopholes, collusion, and administrative manipulation to persist. If such practices were carried out over a significant period and involved multiple actors, then the issue goes beyond individual misconduct. It points to systemic failure.

 

POME is essentially liquid waste generated from palm oil processing. When products that should have been classified as crude palm oil (CPO) or its derivatives were allegedly mislabeled as POME to avoid export duties and regulatory obligations, this indicates deliberate administrative manipulation. Such a scheme could not have succeeded without serious lapses in oversight—or worse, internal complicity. This suggests that Indonesia’s export monitoring system still relies too heavily on individual integrity rather than robust institutional controls.

 

The government cannot position itself solely as a victim of dishonest business actors. The state possesses regulatory authority, enforcement agencies, and technological capacity. If manipulation of Harmonized System (HS) codes and export documentation could occur at a scale large enough to cause losses in the trillions of rupiah, then there has been a structural breakdown in cross-ministerial verification—whether within the Ministry of Trade, Customs and Excise, or other relevant agencies.

 

One fundamental issue lies in fragmented data and poor inter-agency integration. Indonesia’s export system still allows discrepancies between technical documentation, customs declarations, and production reports. Without an integrated digital system capable of tracking goods from origin to export in real time, opportunities for manipulation will always exist. Digital reform is no longer optional—it is essential.

 

In addition, the government must critically evaluate its palm oil export policies, which have often been revised and layered with complex requirements. When regulations are frequently changed or overly complicated, they create uncertainty. In such an environment, opportunistic actors can exploit ambiguity for personal gain. Regulatory inconsistency not only undermines compliance but also weakens enforcement.

 

Nevertheless, firm law enforcement remains the key to restoring public trust. This case must be investigated thoroughly and transparently, regardless of whether it implicates high-ranking officials or major corporations. The public has the right to know how the scheme operated, who benefited from it, and how the state intends to recover the losses. Selective enforcement would only deepen skepticism toward the government’s anti-corruption commitment.

 

Beyond prosecution, preventive measures are equally important. The government should implement at least three concrete reforms. First, it must establish an integrated digital verification system connecting all export-related institutions, minimizing opportunities for data manipulation. Second, it should conduct routine and random audits of companies exporting strategic commodities such as palm oil. Third, it must impose stricter administrative and criminal sanctions, including license revocation for companies proven to have engaged in fraudulent practices.

 

The palm oil sector is one of Indonesia’s largest sources of foreign exchange. Its strategic importance demands governance grounded in transparency, accountability, and integrity. Without good governance, the sector’s enormous potential can easily turn into a channel for revenue leakage.

 

Rp14 trillion is not an abstract number. It represents public funds that could have financed infrastructure, education, healthcare, or social protection for millions of Indonesians. When such a sum disappears due to manipulation and collusion, it is not merely the state that suffers—it is the public at large.

 

If the government is serious about strengthening anti-corruption efforts, this case must serve as a catalyst for systemic reform in export governance. Without structural improvements, similar scandals will inevitably reappear—perhaps under different schemes, but with the same consequence: public loss and eroded trust.

By : K&Co - February 11, 2026

 

Fighting for Access : The Struggle to Reactivate BPJS PBI in Yogyakarta

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The long queues of Yogyakarta residents waiting since early morning to reactivate their BPJS Health Insurance under the Contribution Assistance Recipient (PBI) scheme reveal more than just an administrative issue. This phenomenon reflects deeper structural problems in public service delivery, data management, and social protection policies that directly affect vulnerable communities.

 

At the beginning of February, many residents were surprised to discover that their BPJS PBI status had been deactivated following a government data update process. As a result, hundreds of people flocked to the Public Service Mall in Yogyakarta, hoping to restore their health insurance coverage. Some arrived before office hours, standing in line for hours simply to secure a queue number. Among them were elderly citizens, informal workers, and families who rely heavily on BPJS for routine medical treatment.

 

The government’s intention behind updating beneficiary data is, in principle, commendable. Through the implementation of a unified national socio-economic data system, authorities aim to ensure that social assistance programs are more accurate and reach those who truly need them. In theory, such data cleansing is essential to prevent mistargeting and budget inefficiency. However, the implementation of this policy has exposed significant shortcomings, particularly in communication and transition mechanisms.

 

For many affected residents, the deactivation happened abruptly and without sufficient prior notice. Some only realized their BPJS was no longer active when they arrived at health facilities and were asked to pay medical costs out of pocket. This situation is especially alarming considering that healthcare is a basic necessity and, for low-income families, an unexpected medical expense can be financially devastating.

 

The long queues also highlight the population’s strong dependence on BPJS as a primary gateway to healthcare. Many participants require regular treatment for chronic illnesses or ongoing medical supervision. The temporary loss of coverage does not merely cause inconvenience; it potentially disrupts treatment continuity and places patients at serious health risk. For vulnerable groups such as the elderly and people with disabilities, waiting for hours in crowded service centers adds an additional physical and emotional burden.

 

Furthermore, the situation reveals an inequality in administrative access. Not all citizens have the same ability to take time off work or travel to service centers to resolve bureaucratic issues. Informal workers may have to close their small businesses for a day, while caregivers must leave family responsibilities behind. Although the local government has introduced online services and digital platforms to facilitate reactivation, many residents still prefer or are forced to come in person due to limited digital literacy or incomplete documentation.

 

To its credit, the government has responded by allowing reactivation for individuals with severe or catastrophic illnesses, ensuring that critical patients do not lose access to healthcare. This step demonstrates policy responsiveness. However, reactive measures alone are not enough. A more proactive approach is needed to prevent similar situations in the future, including clearer public communication, gradual implementation, and automatic safeguards for vulnerable groups.

 

In the end, the struggle of Yogyakarta residents lining up before dawn is not merely about patience or perseverance. It is a reminder that well-intentioned policies can produce unintended hardships when implementation overlooks human realities. Ensuring that social protection systems are not only accurate on paper but also accessible and humane in practice is crucial. Healthcare, as a fundamental right, should never become collateral damage in the process of administrative reform.

By : K&Co - February 10, 2026

Corruption in the Courtroom : Lessons from Depok

By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

  

The recent sting operation (OTT) by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) targeting the Chief of the Depok District Court has sent shockwaves through public trust in the judiciary. This case is not merely about alleged bribery involving individuals; it also symbolizes deeper systemic issues concerning integrity, oversight, and institutional culture within Indonesia’s judicial system.

 

Courts are supposed to be the last bastion for justice. Judges, especially the heads of courts, hold a critical role in ensuring that law is applied fairly, independently, and free from external influence. When the very leaders of a judicial institution are caught allegedly engaging in corrupt practices, it is not only their personal reputations that suffer—it is the authority and credibility of the entire institution. Naturally, the public begins to question whether justice is genuinely upheld within the courtroom.

 

The OTT targeting the Depok District Court Chief also illustrates that corruption in the judiciary remains a serious problem. Despite ongoing reforms, such as increased trial transparency and strengthened codes of ethics, the occurrence of such cases indicates significant gaps in internal oversight. This serves as a stark warning that administrative supervision alone is insufficient without a strong culture of integrity and anti-corruption principles.

 

At the same time, the KPK’s actions deserve acknowledgment. The operation underscores that law enforcement cannot be selective, even when it concerns a “sacred” institution like the judiciary. Holding judicial officials accountable is crucial to demonstrate that no one is above the law. In this context, KPK fulfills its role as a guardian of the legal system’s moral integrity, even though such actions often generate inter-institutional tension.

 

However, enforcement alone is not enough. This case should serve as an opportunity for the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission to conduct a comprehensive evaluation—not only targeting individuals but also addressing systemic issues: how judges are promoted and transferred, how high-value cases are monitored, and how reporting mechanisms for misconduct are implemented and protected.

 

Public trust in the judiciary is a foundational pillar of the rule of law. Without it, court decisions, no matter how correct, will always face suspicion. Perhaps the most damaging consequence of corruption within the judiciary is not financial loss, but the erosion of public confidence, which is far harder to restore.

 

Ultimately, the KPK’s sting operation against the Depok District Court Chief should be seen both as a stark warning and an opportunity. A warning that corruption can infiltrate even the institutions expected to be most virtuous, and an opportunity to implement meaningful reforms. If this case ends solely with the punishment of individuals, without systemic reform, public skepticism is justified. Yet, if treated as a turning point to strengthen judicial integrity, this crisis could still yield renewed hope for justice in Indonesia.

By : K&Co - February 9, 2026

When Land Certificates Are No Longer Absolute, A Call for Reform in Indonesia’s Land Administration System

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

In Indonesia, land certificates have long been regarded as the strongest and most authoritative proof of land ownership. Issued by the state through the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN), these certificates provide a sense of legal certainty for landowners. However, the fact that land certificates can be annulled under certain conditions challenges the common perception that they are absolute and untouchable. This reality reveals deeper structural issues within Indonesia’s land administration system that deserve serious attention.

 

According to existing regulations, a land certificate may be canceled due to administrative or juridical defects in its issuance, or as a result of a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force. There are at least seventeen conditions under which a land certificate can be annulled, including procedural errors, overlapping land rights, incorrect data, abuse of authority, or criminal acts such as fraud and document falsification. From a legal standpoint, this is reasonable. In a state governed by the rule of law, no legal document should be immune from review if its issuance violates legal procedures or material requirements.

 

The principle of legal certainty requires not only the existence of official documentation, but also the assurance that such documentation is produced through a lawful, transparent, and accurate process. If a certificate is issued improperly, it may create more harm than protection, especially when it leads to prolonged land disputes. In this sense, the possibility of canceling a defective land certificate serves as a corrective mechanism to uphold justice and legality.

 

Nevertheless, the frequent occurrence of certificate cancellations also exposes weaknesses in the system. For landowners who obtained certificates in good faith, annulment can be deeply unsettling. A certificate that has been recognized for years may suddenly lose its legal standing due to errors committed by administrative authorities or due to disputes that emerge long after issuance. This situation undermines public trust in the land registration system and creates uncertainty that extends beyond individual owners.

 

The impact of such uncertainty is not limited to personal ownership. It also affects the broader economic ecosystem, including banking, investment, and infrastructure development. Land certificates are commonly used as collateral for loans. When the legal status of a certificate is questioned or revoked, both financial institutions and borrowers face significant risks. Investors may also hesitate to engage in land-based projects if ownership rights are perceived as unstable or vulnerable to cancellation.

 

Another critical issue highlighted by these conditions is the lack of reliable and fully integrated land data. Cases of overlapping certificates or conflicting claims suggest that land records are not always accurate or properly synchronized. Despite ongoing digitalization efforts, data verification and coordination among institutions remain problematic. This indicates the need for a more robust, transparent, and accountable land information system supported by regular audits and strict oversight.

 

Furthermore, legal protection for certificate holders must be strengthened. Although mechanisms exist to challenge or defend the validity of land certificates, the process is often complex, time-consuming, and costly. Many landowners are unaware of their rights or the limited time frame available to file objections or legal remedies. As a result, they may lose opportunities to protect their interests effectively.

 

In conclusion, the annulment of land certificates should not be viewed merely as a legal anomaly or systemic failure. Instead, it should serve as a reminder that legal certainty is built not only on documents, but on the integrity of the processes behind them. To ensure genuine legal protection, Indonesia must continue reforming its land administration system by improving data accuracy, strengthening institutional accountability, and enhancing public access to legal information. Only then can land certificates truly fulfill their role as reliable guarantees of ownership and justice.

By : K&Co - February 4, 2026

IHSG’s Sharp Decline: A Market Shock That Forces Long-Overdue Capital Market Reform

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The sharp decline of Indonesia’s Composite Stock Price Index (IHSG) over two consecutive trading days is not merely a routine market correction. It represents a critical stress test for Indonesia’s capital market structure and a clear warning that long-standing structural weaknesses can no longer be ignored. The scale and speed of the sell-off—severe enough to trigger trading halts—signal a crisis of confidence rather than a temporary bout of volatility.

 

At the core of this turbulence lies global investor concern, particularly following warnings from Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI). As a key global index provider, MSCI plays a central role in shaping international portfolio allocations. Its concerns regarding transparency, free-float calculation, and ownership structure in Indonesia’s stock market have profound implications. When doubts emerge over the reliability of market data and investability standards, global investors tend to react swiftly—and decisively—by reducing exposure.

 

The market’s reaction was immediate. Foreign investors engaged in aggressive sell-offs, liquidity thinned rapidly, and price discovery turned disorderly. This response highlights an uncomfortable reality: confidence in capital markets is built not only on economic growth prospects, but also on governance, clarity of regulation, and trust in data integrity. Without these foundations, even fundamentally strong markets become vulnerable to sudden capital flight.

 

In response to the turmoil, Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority (OJK) announced three major reform initiatives aimed at strengthening the capital market. These reforms focus on improving free-float requirements, enhancing transparency of share ownership, and reinforcing regulatory oversight of market data and trading mechanisms. Conceptually, these measures are well-targeted. Higher free float can improve liquidity and price efficiency, while clearer ownership disclosure enhances accountability and reduces information asymmetry.

 

However, the timing of these reforms raises important questions. Why did such fundamental adjustments only gain urgency after a market shock? Structural reforms are most effective when implemented proactively, not reactively. Markets tend to penalize delayed responses, interpreting them as signs that risks were underestimated or overlooked. In this sense, the IHSG correction exposes not only market fragility but also the cost of regulatory inertia.

 

Beyond short-term stabilization, the real challenge lies in restoring and sustaining long-term investor confidence. Global institutional investors do not evaluate markets based on isolated policy announcements. They assess consistency, enforcement, and the credibility of institutions over time. For OJK’s reform agenda to succeed, it must be implemented transparently, communicated clearly, and enforced without exception. Half-measures or prolonged uncertainty would only deepen skepticism.

 

It is also important to recognize that the damage from market turmoil extends beyond index levels. Volatility of this magnitude undermines domestic investor sentiment, discourages retail participation, and raises capital costs for Indonesian companies. If left unaddressed, such conditions could weaken the broader financial ecosystem and reduce the attractiveness of Indonesia as a long-term investment destination.

 

In the short term, market volatility is likely to persist as investors reassess risks and await concrete implementation of reforms. In the medium to long term, however, this episode can serve as a turning point. If regulators use this moment to genuinely align Indonesia’s capital market with global best practices, the crisis could evolve into an opportunity.

 

Ultimately, the recent IHSG plunge should not be viewed simply as a market setback. It is a powerful reminder that credibility, transparency, and governance are the true currencies of modern capital markets. Whether Indonesia emerges stronger from this episode will depend not on how quickly the index recovers, but on how decisively reforms are executed to rebuild trust and resilience for the future.

By : K&Co - February 2, 2026

Why MSCI’s Request Matters for Indonesia’s Stock Market Credibility

By Kusnandar & Co. Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The recent request by MSCI, one of the world’s most influential index providers, for greater transparency in Indonesia’s stock ownership data should not be viewed as a mere technical issue. Instead, it reflects a deeper concern about the credibility, governance, and reliability of Indonesia’s capital market in the eyes of global investors. MSCI’s call for the Financial Services Authority (OJK) to disclose beneficial ownership (ultimate beneficial owner/UBO) data, including holdings below five percent, is a clear signal that transparency has become a non-negotiable standard in today’s global financial ecosystem.

 

This issue gained prominence following a sharp decline in Indonesia’s stock market, which even triggered a temporary trading halt. Market participants linked the volatility to MSCI’s assessment of Indonesia’s free float quality and ownership transparency—two critical indicators used to evaluate market investability. When investors are unable to clearly identify who ultimately controls listed shares, uncertainty increases. For global institutional investors, such uncertainty often translates into higher risk premiums or even capital withdrawal.

 

In this context, OJK’s response—committing to provide beneficial ownership data to MSCI, starting with major index constituents such as the IDX100—deserves recognition. The move signals that Indonesian regulators are willing to align with international best practices rather than adopt a defensive stance. Transparency is no longer just about regulatory compliance; it is about maintaining credibility in an increasingly competitive global capital market.

 

However, the decision to open beneficial ownership data also comes with significant challenges. Beneficial ownership information is inherently sensitive, as it reveals control structures that are often deliberately complex. In many cases, layered ownership is not only a business strategy but also a means of protecting privacy and commercial interests. Therefore, OJK must strike a careful balance between meeting global transparency standards and safeguarding legitimate data protection concerns. Transparency should strengthen trust, not create new vulnerabilities.

 

Beyond the immediate issue, MSCI’s request exposes a broader structural question: how mature is Indonesia’s capital market governance framework? While regulations on free float and disclosure already exist, MSCI’s concerns suggest that the available data may not sufficiently reflect the true ownership landscape. This highlights a gap not in regulation alone, but in data quality, consistency, and accessibility—factors that increasingly define a market’s standing at the international level.

 

The discussion around raising the minimum free float requirement to 15 percent further reinforces this point. If implemented effectively, such a policy could improve market liquidity, reduce price manipulation risks, and enhance overall market resilience. More importantly, it would signal that Indonesia is moving beyond symbolic reforms toward substantive improvements in market structure. For long-term investors, this kind of reform matters far more than short-term market fluctuations.

 

At the same time, the strong market reaction to MSCI’s assessment serves as a reminder of how interconnected Indonesia’s capital market is with global perceptions. MSCI’s influence is significant; its evaluations can affect portfolio allocations worth billions of dollars. Speculation about a potential downgrade in market classification—even if unlikely—illustrates how governance issues can quickly escalate into reputational risks if not addressed decisively.

 

Ultimately, OJK’s willingness to engage with MSCI on beneficial ownership transparency should be seen as a strategic opportunity. By improving disclosure standards and data integrity, Indonesia can strengthen investor confidence, reduce volatility driven by uncertainty, and enhance its position within global capital flows. The challenge lies in execution: transparency must be implemented carefully, consistently, and credibly. If done right, this moment could mark a meaningful step forward in Indonesia’s journey toward a more trusted and globally competitive capital market.

By : K&Co - January 30, 2026