DPR Commission III Expels Developer During Meeting Over Mosque Dispute in Bekasi

Chairman of DPR Commission III, Habiburokhman, expelled a representative from the property developer PT Hasana Damai Putra (HDP) from a public hearing held by DPR Commission III. This was because the representative did not comply with the meeting’s rules of procedure.

The meeting was held in the meeting room of DPR Commission III in the parliament complex, Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday (February 26, 2026). The meeting discussed follow-up actions regarding the case of the rejection of access to the mosque in the Vasana and Neo Vasana housing complexes.

Initially, Habiburokhman asked the developer for an explanation regarding the reasons why the conclusions from a previous public hearing were not implemented. It is known that, in that meeting, the developer did not mention its name.

“Could you explain, from HDP, since you were present yesterday, why you haven’t implemented it?” asked Habiburokhman.

The developer stated that there were residents from the Vasana cluster who protested. However, Habiburokhman considered that this was not the developer’s concern.

“First, I want to say that, in addition to that, there are residents from the Vasana cluster who…” said the developer.

“That’s not your concern. That’s not your concern. Will you answer or will you leave?” said Habiburokhman.

The developer felt that this needed to be conveyed. However, Habiburokhman again questioned the reason why the decision of DPR Commission III was not implemented.

“No need. Just answer what I asked, why didn’t you implement the decision of Commission III?” asked Habiburokhman.

“Okay, I’ll answer that first. We didn’t, we didn’t fail to implement it, we never rejected it. So, I’m clarifying the statement of our friend that we never rejected the recommendation, the decision of the public hearing,” said the developer.

“But it wasn’t implemented,” said Habiburokhman.

The developer said that the decision had not been implemented because there were obstacles. He then asked Commission III to look at the problem objectively.

“But the decision has not been implemented until now because there are obstacles. We can explain these obstacles in this meeting. Before continuing with that, Mr. Chairman, this is a hearing forum. We are all asked for our opinions to make decisions so that the existing problems can be resolved objectively and clearly,” said the developer.

Habiburokhman explained that as the chairman of Commission III, his duty is to regulate the course of the meeting. He then asked the developer to simply answer the questions asked.

“You just finish it, in the MD3 Law, I, as Chairman of Commission III, the chairman of Commission III leads the meeting, regulates the flow of the session, yes. So if I say, you answer the questions earlier, just answer, don’t go off topic,” said Habiburokhman.

“Yes, I’ve answered,” said the developer.

“Yes, what are the obstacles? What are the obstacles?” asked Habiburokhman.

The developer again said that there was an area that rejected the opening of the wall. The developer said that residents would sue if the wall was opened for access to the mosque.

“I’m saying that the first obstacle is that most of the residents in the cluster reject the opening of the wall and state that they will sue HDP legally if it carries out the opening of the cluster wall or allows other parties to open the cluster wall,” said the developer.

“Secondly, the statement of rejection of the legal claim from the residents was submitted in writing to HDP through a letter dated October 12, 2024…” said the developer.

Habiburokhman interrupted the explanation. He considered that the explanation was just a repetition and did not answer the essence of the problem.

“That’s the same as the first point…” said Habiburokhman.

The developer then asked Habiburokhman not to interrupt his statement. Habiburokhman then reprimanded the developer for regulating the course of the meeting.

“That’s not it, but there’s more. I ask that you don’t interrupt me, Mr. Chairman…” said the developer.

“I’m the one who regulates, sir! You leave! Security, get this person out, he’s not effective in the meeting. Please leave!” said Habiburokhman.

“Leave! It’s not clear! You’re amazing, leave! You’ve been warned three times. Please have the security guard called to get him out. This is hindering the construction of the mosque. Yes, yes. Please leave, sir,” Habiburokhman continued.

After the incident, Habiburokhman said that the issue of access to the mosque actually had a solution in the previous meeting. The solutions included opening access with a one-gate system or building a fence that accommodates the interests of all parties.

“Suddenly, he conveyed things that had been conveyed earlier, that there were residents who objected and so on, it has nothing to do with residents objecting, there is no reason for anyone to object to the construction of the mosque,” said Habiburokhman.

“From a security point of view, it was said earlier that it would be a one-gate system and so on. Because if we invite parties who are not interested in the rights of these people to carry out worship, it will be very complicated. It will only create issues of religious conflict and so on. Therefore, we must be wise,” he continued.

Habiburokhman explained that the reason the developer was expelled was because he had violated the rules of procedure. According to him, the developer tried to take over the leadership of the meeting.

“Earlier, we expelled him because he had violated the rules of procedure. In the rules of procedure, the chairman of the meeting regulates the flow of the session. Earlier, he wanted to regulate the flow of the session, and it was no longer effective, and the developer must follow the DPR’s decision, sir. Not only the developer, but all of us, the DPR’s decisions are binding,” he said.

Habiburokhman then reminded that there are legal consequences for those who obstruct the implementation of worship. He referred to the provisions in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code, which regulates sanctions against those who, by force or threat of force, obstruct people from carrying out worship.

“If there are parties who obstruct the implementation of the DPR’s decision…”