Accused of Refusing to Meet PMII Protesters, Purwakarta Prosecutor's Office Speaks Out

A narrative of refusal emerged following a demonstration by the Indonesian Islamic Student Movement (PMII) outside the Purwakarta District Prosecutor’s Office (Kejari Purwakarta) on Thursday (18/6/2026). The Purwakarta Chief Prosecutor was accused of deliberately shutting himself away and being unwilling to meet the student masses. However, behind the uproar of the demonstration at the front gate, a coordination effort had actually been attempted since the night before the protest took place. The Prosecutor’s Office clarified that the Chief Prosecutor’s absence was purely a matter of time management, not resistance to public aspirations.

Head of the Intelligence Section at the Purwakarta Prosecutor’s Office, Ratno Timur Habeahan Pasaribu, revealed that news of the planned protest was only received by his office on Wednesday (17/6/2026) evening. The tight timeframe was immediately met with persuasive communication efforts directed at the student leaders.

‘That very night, we immediately coordinated and consolidated with the Chair of the PMII Purwakarta Branch via WhatsApp. We requested that the protest be moved to Friday (19/6/2026). Why? Because on Thursday, the institution’s agenda was already fully locked in,’ Ratno stated on Saturday (20/6/2026).

The agenda Ratno referred to was the 2026 ‘Prosecutor Goes to School’ Festival (JMS). He explained that this was not merely a routine socialisation event, but a flagship innovation project initiated directly by the Purwakarta Chief Prosecutor to engage the younger generation. The large scale of the event required all Purwakarta Prosecutor’s Office employees, without exception, to serve as organising committee members.

‘The series of events was a marathon, starting from 07:00 WIB and finishing at 19:30 WIB. All our personnel’s energy and concentration were devoted to making the activity a success. So, there was no free time available on Thursday,’ Ratno said.

Responding to negative issues in the mass media, Ratno stressed that the Prosecutor’s Office never uses a shield of busyness to avoid criticism. His office claimed to have offered an accommodative middle ground via a written message before the students took to the streets.

‘In that message, we conveyed that if our PMII colleagues were willing to shift their protest to Friday, 19 June, then the Purwakarta Chief Prosecutor would personally receive their aspirations. However, if PMII still chose to deliver their aspirations on Thursday, 18 June 2026, they would be officially received by me as the Head of Intelligence of the Purwakarta Prosecutor’s Office,’ Ratno asserted.

Ratno regretted that the coordination dynamics on the ground were wrongly framed externally as if the Chief Prosecutor had deliberately avoided or was unwilling to meet them. According to him, the two options offered were a form of respect from the Prosecutor’s Office for the students’ right to express opinions, ensuring they still received an official forum.

In his closing statement, Ratno emphasised that criticism and student action are vitamins for law enforcement. The Purwakarta Prosecutor’s Office does not position demonstrators as opponents, but rather as critical partners.

‘The Prosecutor’s Office belongs to the public, and we are always open to every aspiration. We actually need the support and oversight from all elements of society, including our student colleagues, in enforcing the law in Purwakarta,’ he concluded.