Hajj and Umrah Under a Single Regulatory Regime: Negative Implications for Umrah Organisers

The concept of “hajj and umrah under a single regulatory regime” represents a significant development in the legal framework governing religious travel in Indonesia.

Through Law No. 8 of 2019 on the Organisation of Hajj and Umrah Pilgrimage, the state no longer treats hajj and umrah as two entirely separate religious activities from an administrative law perspective. Instead, it regulates them within a single framework encompassing guidance, services, protection, supervision, and the responsibilities of organisers.

This unification essentially aims to create legal certainty, improve service quality, protect pilgrims, and strengthen accountability in the organisation of pilgrimage.

However, the unification of the regulatory regime also has negative aspects, particularly for umrah travel organisers (PPIU).

The characteristics of hajj and umrah are fundamentally different. Hajj is heavily influenced by state policy, quotas, bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia, and the management of pilgrims in large numbers, whereas umrah largely operates through travel service mechanisms, contractual relationships between PPIU and pilgrims, and relatively flexible market dynamics.

When both activities are placed under a single regulatory regime, there is a risk that administrative approaches designed to ensure orderly hajj organisation are also applied excessively to umrah organisation.

The first negative impact is the increased administrative burden and compliance costs for PPIU. Organisers must not only meet service standards for pilgrims but also face increasingly complex licensing requirements, reporting obligations, supervision, business standards, and potential administrative sanctions.

For small and medium-sized PPIU, this increased burden can reduce their ability to compete, as compliance costs may ultimately be passed on to the price of umrah packages.

Secondly, the unification of the regulatory regime can lead to overregulation and reduced business flexibility. The umrah industry is highly dynamic, particularly in determining ticket prices, hotels, transport, currency exchange rates, departure seasons, and cooperation with partners in Saudi Arabia. Overly rigid regulation can hamper the ability of PPIU to respond quickly to market changes.

In this context, pilgrim protection is indeed a legitimate objective, but its achievement must be carried out proportionally so that it does not turn into excessive restriction of business activity.

Thirdly, there is a risk of imbalance between obligations and the capacity of organisers. The state may set high service standards, but not all PPIU have the same financial capacity, human resources, technology, and business networks.

If these standards are applied uniformly without considering the scale and capacity of organisers, regulation can create barriers to entry and encourage industry concentration among large-capital organisers only.

Such conditions may actually reduce the diversity of business actors and potentially narrow public choice.

Fourthly, a strong supervisory and sanctions regime can create legal uncertainty for PPIU if violation norms are formulated broadly or without clear parameters.

Pilgrim protection must not eliminate the principles of due process of law, legal certainty, proportionality, and good governance.

Sanctions against PPIU should be differentiated based on the degree of fault, the consequences caused, and the organiser’s ability to remedy the violation.

Minor administrative errors should not receive the same consequences as violations that genuinely harm pilgrims.

“Hajj and umrah under a single regulatory regime” represents progress from the perspective of governance integration, but it can also become a problem if it produces uniformity of regulation that ignores the different characteristics of hajj and umrah.

Umrah regulation should ideally remain within the framework of pilgrim protection, but must preserve space for innovation, healthy competition, business efficiency, and the sustainability of PPIU.

Therefore, the measure of regulatory success does not lie solely in the increasing strength of state control, but in the ability to create a balance between pilgrim protection and business freedom, between legal certainty and business flexibility, and between public interest and the sustainability of umrah organisers.