Plenary Session: Jakarta Legislators Highlight Population Control Bylaw

The Jakarta Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) has highlighted the Draft Regional Regulation (Raperda) on Population Control. The Democrat-Perindo Party faction has urged that the regulation not only govern the number, mobility, and administration of the population but also protect native Jakartans, particularly the Betawi community.

This was conveyed by Andika Wisnuadji Putra Subroto, a member of the Democrat-Perindo faction in the Jakarta DPRD, while presenting his faction’s general views during a plenary session on Wednesday (26/8/2026).

Andika stated that Jakarta’s growth must go hand in hand with the protection of residents who have lived in and built the city for generations. “The principle is not to restrict the rights of other citizens to come and live in Jakarta, but to ensure that Jakarta’s growth does not cause the Betawi community to become increasingly marginalised economically, socially, spatially, and culturally from their own city,” he said.

According to him, the draft bylaw has actually opened space for the protection of local residents. This is stipulated in Article 19 paragraph (3) letter a, which mandates the Jakarta Provincial Government to pay attention to the protection of the culture and identity of local residents. However, he assessed that this provision remains general in nature and has not been translated into concrete affirmative policies.

“Such protection should encompass residential areas, access to affordable housing, economic empowerment, protection of assets and living space, development of Betawi villages and cultural areas, as well as the involvement of the Betawi community in development planning that impacts their residential areas,” he said.

The Democrat-Perindo faction therefore requested that the Governor of Jakarta explain how this provision will be implemented. They also sought certainty on whether the protection of local residents will be translated into affirmative policies.

In addition to the protection of Betawi residents, the Democrat-Perindo faction highlighted Article 20 of the Population Control Bylaw. Andika said his faction could not accept the article in its current form. Article 19 paragraph (4) is said to guarantee everyone’s right to choose their place of residence. However, Article 20 requires new residents to meet criteria regarding length of domicile or to have employment before receiving population services. The article also opens the possibility of ‘administrative restrictions’. Andika questioned the form and limits of such restrictions.

“We understand the government’s need to organise population administration. What we question is the legal consequences for residents,” he stressed. He asked whether the restrictions apply only to population administration services or could also affect basic services.

According to him, the issues faced by informal workers, home renters, and residents who move due to work or cost-of-living pressures also need attention. Andika assessed that the objection mechanism in the event of domicile data errors must be clearly regulated and not entirely delegated through a Governor Regulation (Pergub).

“A Pergub is indeed necessary for technical implementation. But the key criteria determining who is subject to restrictions, which services can be restricted, and what protections are available for residents must be visible in the Bylaw,” he said.

Andika also assessed that the direction of population control policy needs to be adjusted to Jakarta’s demographic changes. He highlighted Article 8, which still extensively regulates the ideal age for marriage, the ideal age for childbirth, birth spacing, and family planning (KB) services. According to him, such policies remain important for maternal and child health. However, Jakarta’s demographic conditions have now changed.

Based on data presented in the faction’s views, Jakarta’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has reached 1.79, below the population replacement level of 2.1. Meanwhile, the proportion of elderly residents has reached 12.01 percent. The population growth rate over the last five years has also reportedly slowed to around 0.32 percent per year. Net recent migration was recorded at minus 5.40 percent.

“Jakarta is still densely populated, but the issue is no longer just how many people are entering. Age structure, distribution, mobility, and data quality are now equally important,” he added.

On the other hand, the Democrat-Perindo faction also supports the updating of population data to improve the targeting of government programmes. However, Andika reminded that data accuracy must go hand in hand with personal data protection. He highlighted Chapter VII of the Bylaw, which regulates the population information and family planning system. The system potentially contains data on family planning acceptors and reproductive health, which are classified as specific personal data under Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection.

According to Andika, Article 25 paragraph (8), which states that personal data protection is carried out in accordance with statutory provisions, is insufficient for sensitive data. “Residents have the right to know who stores it, who can access it, and who is responsible in the event of a leak or misuse,” he said.

He also requested that population control policies be integrated with employment policies. One way is through training, apprenticeships, job vacancy information, job matching, and the placement of workers in activities and projects facilitated or supported by the Jakarta Provincial Government. Andika said the business sector also needs to be encouraged to increase the absorption of local labour while still paying attention to competence, qualifications, and statutory provisions.

He added that improving domicile data is necessary so that social assistance, financial aid, Health BPJS Contribution Assistance Recipients (PBI), and various regional services are accurately targeted. However, the verification process must be carried out carefully. Andika mentioned that in 2025 there were around 100,000 data records initially indicated as not matching domicile. After checking, around 70,000 of them were found to still be living at the registered address.