Indonesia Must Quarantine Disease Not Justice -By Ardhiana Nur Suryani

Some shipments could be carrying a deadly microbe. You could also be carrying someone entire living. Indonesia’s quarantine authorities have a responsibility to do this without viewing their powers to detain or destroy commodities as rendering them free from examination.

Tasked with challenging entries at seaports, airports and inter-island gateways, the Indonesian Quarantine Agency Barantin, faces real risks to agriculture, fisheries, biodiversity and public health. Successful biosecurity, however, involves more than decisive action. It demands scientifically defensible, legally sanctioned and contestable decisions.

The 2019 quarantine law of Indonesia explicitly acknowledges justice, science, necessity, proportionality, transparency and non discrimination. These are statutory obligations that administrative action should be benchmarked against

Amidst rehashing the basics, a 2026 regulation about state control over quarantine carrier materials reminds us as to when is protective authority really just control of another’s property?

The answer requires one fundamental distinction. For carrier materials whose owners cannot be identified, nor found or which have been surrendered by other agencies and examination reveals the specified absence of Quarantine pests, Plant Pests or Plants according to Article 71 of Law Number 21 Year 2019. It does not provide a blanket rule that the failure to complete paperwork renders goods state property.

It is imperative, therefore that detention, rejection, destruction and state control be separate legal determinations. But confusing the two would be to turn an administrative problem into irreversible deprivation without proving the appropriate statutory basis.

Reform should not presume that only laboratory-confirmed infection is sufficient to trigger intervention. In some cases, credible biological threats must be acted upon as a precautionary measure. The question should be whether is the measure justified in law with relevant evidence and proportionate to the risk?

Just because a deadline is exact, that does not mean it is justice. A trader may fulfill all requirements and still end up wasting perishables waiting for explanations. The clock of the regulator has to be disciplined with as much force of legal certainty as that which governs the owners.

Indonesia should reformulate this framework with five enforceable safeguards.

Step one: create distinct legal floors for each intervention For every decision, the commodity shall be identified, statutory ground (in a sense how it satisfies law), evidence to support such conclusion, responsible officer for making it and the deadline as well as available remedy. Delivery of quarantine-action documents to owners is already required under Article 70, but implementation needs these documents to be accurate sources of information.

Second, establish reciprocal deadlines. It makes owners quickly remedy deficiencies, and make authorities adhere to timelines they publish for inspections, testing and decisions. Extensions should require written justification. Deprived of any automatic action that should turn the goods of an identifiable owner into abandoned property agency delay must never create an abandonment.

Third, make scientific evidence contestable. Set of some pollution data including test results, information concerning the sampling and method used for testing, etc. We can arrange re-testing independently if possible. Preserve samples when safe. If urgent destruction is needed, explain in your own words why treatment, isolation or exportation lessens the risk of danger.

Fourth, implement expedited independent review prior to irreversible disposal where safe containment allows. Real emergencies should allow you to intervene right away and be followed by an expeditious post facto review. At best, an appeal that is resolved after such destruction provides little practical protection.

Fifth, legislate clear remedies for unlawful conduct. Destruction of protected property is not compensated under the rules set forth in Article 48(3). Reform should explicitly separate lawful destruction from official error or abuse and put in place a clear remedy.

Release anonymised enforcement results, processing and reversal times, and disposal records. Treat selective enforcement as a biological threat to the same degree.

We need quarantine officers with the authority to stop dangerous goods and institutions that can block unjust decisions. Public trust is available when the state can justify its power, assert its relevance and account for its errors on biosecurity.

Ardhiana Nur Suryani

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Head of The Law Enforcement Team Indonesian Quarantine Agency