Legal Blunders in the 2024 Hajj Quota Case
The recent social media posts by the Deputy Minister of Hajj and Umrah, Dahnil Anzar Simanjuntaks, regarding the 2024 Hajj quota case trial warrant close examination. The Deputy Minister alluded to the exposure of a ‘Hajj cartel’ and referred to internal ‘minor oversights’ that could lead to detrimental consequences. From a legal perspective, the arguments and the handling of alleged irregularities must be viewed through the lens of a jurist.
The distribution of Hajj quotas is not merely an internal administrative matter, but a binding legal norm regulated under Article 64 of Law No. 8 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Hajj and Umrah Pilgrimage. This regulation mandates that the special Hajj quota is set at a maximum of 8 per cent of Indonesia’s total quota, while 92 per cent is allocated for regular Hajj. The unilateral reallocation of the additional quota (50 per cent regular and 50 per cent special) for the 2024 Hajj season is not simply a form of oversight or technical error, but an unlawful act (perbuatan melawan hukum) that normatively violates the hierarchy of laws.
Disregarding the Principle of Regulatory Compliance
In state administrative law, the discretion of public officials is limited by law (beyond authority/ultra vires). Discretion must not violate criminal provisions or higher-ranking regulations. Firstly, the misuse of authority—by changing the quota allocation formula without parliamentary approval and in contradiction to the Law—constitutes an abuse of power. Secondly, when quota allocations are transferred to private travel agencies (special Hajj) outside of standard procedures and involve transaction fund flows, the action moves beyond the realm of maladministration into the scope of corruption (Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001).
The use of the term ‘cartel’ by public officials tends to shift blame onto external parties (the private sector/third parties). Juridically, the existence of a ‘cartel’ in Hajj implementation cannot exist independently without the involvement of regulatory officials (state-facilitated corruption).
From a normative legal perspective, the reallocation of the additional Hajj quota using a 50:50 scheme clearly ignores the explicit provisions of Article 64 of Law Number 8 of 2019, which mandates a strict division of 92 per cent for regular Hajj and 8 per cent for special Hajj.
Framing these actions as mere internal ‘minor oversights’ is a legal oversimplification. Ignoring multi-level regulations cannot be categorised as a mere administrative error, but rather as an unlawful act by the government (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad). If this reallocation is proven to benefit certain parties and cause losses to the rights of regular Hajj pilgrims or state finances, then the action possesses strong potential to meet the material elements of corruption as regulated under Articles 2 and 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001.
Neglecting the Offence of Abuse of Power
The tendency to shift blame towards the existence of a ‘cartel’ or external/private parties reflects a disregard for the fundamental concept of the offence of abuse of power by public officials. In administrative and criminal corruption law, the determination or reallocation of public policy that deviates from the principle of legality falls entirely within the responsibility of the policymakers holding normative authority. The involvement of private entities does not exempt public officials from legal liability (strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid), as the availability of quotas and their distribution mechanisms are under the state’s monopoly; thus, any deviation in the allocation system is fundamentally rooted in the abuse of official authority at the regulatory level.
Law enforcement in Hajj governance cannot be resolved through narratives of internal improvement or social media rhetoric. Legal certainty can only be achieved if the judicial process tests the legality of the quota allocation transparently in the Corruption Court.
In the context of Hajj implementation, the presence or involvement of private entities, such as travel agencies or special Hajj organisers (PIHK), does not automatically eliminate or exempt public officials from criminal liability. Based on the doctrines of criminal law and the corruption crime regime, the authority to determine, divide, and supervise Hajj quotas is an attributive power held exclusively and monopolistically by regulators or public officials. Private entities merely act as beneficiaries or implementers of the established policies.
If an allocation deviation occurs that violates statutory regulations, such as those in Article 64 of Law No. 8 of 2019, the actions of the public official remain crystallised as an abuse of power under Article 3 of the Corruption Law. In such cases, the involvement of the private sector is positioned as a form of participation (deelneming) or corrupt conspiracy, which does not diminish the degree of fault or the legal obligations of the public official regarding the policies they have enacted.