Danantara Syariah: A Grand Vision Requiring Legal Certainty

The idea of forming Danantara Syahria, which emerged during the VIII Indonesian Muslim Congress, deserves appreciation. This concept stems from a genuine concern: Indonesia’s Islamic economic and financial potential is immense, yet it has not been fully consolidated or directed productively towards strengthening the real sector, financing community businesses, and improving public welfare.

This discourse has already moved beyond the congress podium, as the Vice Chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), KH Cholil Nafis, admitted to presenting this idea directly to Rosan Roeslani, the CEO of Danantara. However, a grand idea cannot be sustained by optimism alone; it must be accompanied by a clear institutional design and a solid legal foundation.

The caution expressed by the internal members of the Indonesian Ulema Council, including the push for this plan to be studied deeply before implementation, is the correct approach. In the management of public funds and religious social funds, caution is not an obstacle; it is a fundamental responsibility.

Danantara Syariah is not designed as an institution built from scratch. It is envisioned as a sub-holding or derivative entity of the Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency (BPI Danuna), meaning it will operate within the legal architecture of BPI Danantara established through Law Number 1 of 2025 regarding the third amendment to the State-Owned Enterprises Law, subsequently amended by Law Number 16 of 2025, Government Regulation Number 10 of 2025 on the organisation and governance of BPI Danantara, and Presidential Decree Number 30 of 2025.

The consequence is clear: Danantara Syariah will inherit several legal characteristics from its parent institution. This requires meticulous attention, particularly regarding provisions for legal protection or immunity for Danantara managers. This issue is not merely an academic debate; initial provisions in Law Number 1 of 2025 regarding the status of SOE organs and Danantara were challenged in the Constitutional Court via judicial review, before the legislature took corrective measures through Law Number 16 of 2025.

Nevertheless, the provision regarding SOE losses being treated as the corporation’s own loss in the revised law still leaves debate regarding the limits of the criminal liability of directors and commissioners. While protection for business decision-makers is necessary to prevent investment paralysis due to the criminalisation of policy, such protection must not transform into immunity from accountability.

In the context of Danantara Syariah, this issue becomes even more critical, even though the involvement of zakat, infaq, alms, and waqf funds in its scheme remains at the stage of a proposal voiced by the Indonesian Ulema Council and has not yet become official state policy. If realised, the management of such funds demands a higher standard of accountability. Furthermore, it must address the reality that zakat is exclusively regulated by Law Number 23 of 2011 under the authority of BAZNAS and licensed zakat institutions, while waqf is subject to Law Number 41 of 2004 under the authority of nazhirs supervised by the Indonesian Waqf Board. Community funds are not merely investment capital; they carry social trust, religious values, and the goal of public benefit.

A good legal standard is measured not just by the existence of regulations, but by whether certainty operates alongside justice and utility for the wider community—three elements formulated by Gustav Radbruch as an inseparable unity.

From the perspective of legal certainty, using the BPI Danantara structure is advantageous as the state does not need to build a new institution from scratch. However, certainty should not be interpreted merely as the availability of a regulatory umbrella. It also implies clarity regarding funding sources, authority, investment mechanisms, supervision, risk sharing, and accountability in the event of deviations.

From the perspective of justice, Islamic economics places the principles of ’adl (justice) and mas’uliyyah (responsibility) as its foundation: the benefits of wealth management must not be concentrated within a specific group, and every trustee must be able to account for their decisions.

Therefore, if Danantara Syariah is to manage community funds, its supervisory mechanism cannot rely solely on standard corporate governance. There must be a Sharia supervisory system, public transparency, adequate auditing, and a correction mechanism in the event of violations of Sharia principles.

From the perspective of utility, the national zakat potential in 2026 is estimated to reach approximately IDR 327 trillion. Meanwhile, the National Zakat Agency (BAZNAS) targets official collection of IDR 60 trillion this year. This nearly six-fold gap indicates significant room to expand collection and optimise the productive use of community funds. If combined with the potential of infaq, alms, and waqf, the challenge is not merely the availability of resources, but the strengthening of scale, connectivity, and ecosystem governance to ensure benefits reach a wider population.

With professional, transparent, and real-sector-oriented management, these funds can further strengthen micro and small business financing, the halal industry, food security, education, and health. However, such immense utility will only be sustainable if supported by trust. Trust is not born from potential alone, but from the certainty of rules, transparency in management, and the integrity of those entrusted with the responsibility.

The structure may already exist, but structure without substance…