Less than a month away from 18 October 2026, the Halal Product\nAssurance Agency (BPJPH) is entering its most decisive phase since the\nbirth of the mandatory halal regime: the full implementation of\ncertification requirements for all products circulating and traded in\nIndonesia, whether produced domestically or imported from abroad.<\/p>\n
Signals from several foreign exporters expressing readiness to comply\nwith BPJPH Regulation Number 4 of 2026 regarding the Assurance of\nConformity for Foreign Halal Products should be reassuring. However,\nBappenas data cited by INDEF economist A. Hakam Naja reveals a more\nfundamental anxiety: only about four per cent of domestic business\nactors have halal-certified products.<\/p>\n
Normatively, Law Number 3ability 33 of 2014 on Halal Product\nAssurance and Government Regulation Number 42 of 2024 do not\ndifferentiate treatment between domestic and foreign products; both are\nsubject to the same deadline of 18 October 2026. This formal equality is\nnot merely a policy choice but a legal necessity, in line with the\nprinciple of national treatment in the international trade regime, which\nprohibits discriminatory treatment of imported goods through technical\nbarriers. Therefore, the real issue lies not in the norms, but in the\ngap in implementation capacity between the two sides of the market.<\/p>\n
Three Radbruch Values: Certainty with Potential Imbalance<\/p>\n
Legal certainty, which Radbruch called Rechtssicherheit<\/em>, is\nmore easily felt through the experience of business actors than through\ntextbook definitions, and at this point, the BPJPH possesses significant\nassets. Since the first phase was rolled out in 2019, the halal\nmandatory roadmap has been progressively clarified. We find that BPJPH\nRegulation Number 2 of 2026 details tiered administrative sanctions,\nwhile BPJPH Regulation Number 4 of 2026 regulates the verification of\nimported products through an integrated electronic system without\nunnecessary delays.<\/p>\n For cross-border business actors organising supply chains for years\nto come, such predictability is a valuable opportunity. It is something\nthat is often sacrificed when the law is too preoccupied with pursuing\njustice (Gerechtigkeit<\/em>) or utility (Zweckm\u00e4\u00dfigkeit<\/em>)\nalone\u2014two elements within Radbruch\u2019s classical framework that more\nfrequently receive focus.<\/p>\n However, normative certainty does not necessarily correlate with\nsubstantive justice. Large exporters have generally long operated within\nstrict international standard certification regimes or mutual\nrecognition schemes, making them relatively prepared. Conversely,\ndomestic MSMEs, despite being provided with a self-declaration pathway\nthrough SIHALAL and free certification subsidies via the SEHATI\nprogramme\u2014with a quota of 1.35 million certificates per year\u2014still face\nstructural obstacles, including digital literacy, limited assistance,\nand a high dependency on halal raw materials. This disparity in capacity\nrisks transforming legal equality on paper into a real gap on the\nground. It is not because foreign products<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mandatory-halal-by-october-2026-testing-legal-equality-between-imported-products-and-msmes-1789887133",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}