Testing the Legality of the Umrah Terminal Transfer
The plan to move Umrah pilgrim departures from Terminal 3 to Terminal 2 at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport has elicited various responses from the public, particularly from Umrah Travel Organisers (PPIU), associations, and prospective pilgrims. The debate is not merely about the change of departure location, but also touches on aspects of service quality, pilgrim comfort, operational efficiency, and allegations that the policy lacks a comprehensive study.
From the perspective of state administrative law and consumer protection, such a policy cannot be viewed solely as a technical issue of airport management. Legally, the government and airport operators have the authority to regulate terminal operations based on principles of aviation safety, security, capacity, and efficiency. However, every public administration policy must also comply with the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB) as recognised in Indonesian administrative law.
The principles of expediency, legal certainty, openness, proportionality, professionalism, and good service are benchmarks for whether a policy has met the standards of good governance. Therefore, if the terminal transfer imposes a greater burden on pilgrims, particularly the elderly and those with disabilities, it is questionable whether the principles of expediency and proportionality have truly been fulfilled.
From the perspective of protecting Umrah pilgrims, the state has an obligation to provide safe, comfortable, and humane services, in line with the spirit of the Law on the Implementation of Hajj and Umrah. Although the law does not specify a departure terminal, its substance requires that all aspects of Umrah pilgrimage services be organised with the protection of pilgrims as a priority. Policies that force pilgrims to transfer between terminals by bus, undergo two departure processes, or face more difficult access have the potential to reduce service quality, especially for the large number of elderly pilgrims in Indonesia’s Umrah departures. Under consumer protection law, Umrah pilgrims are also consumers of services. They are entitled to services that meet quality standards, transparent information, and proper comfort. If the terminal change reduces the quality of service that was previously part of the travel package marketed by PPIU, then the organisers and regulators must openly explain the reasons for the policy to avoid the perception of treatment that is detrimental to consumers.
Ideally, the public policy-making process should be based on a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) or a policy impact study. Such a study should at least include an analysis of benefits, costs, risks, and social impacts on all stakeholders. In the context of the Umrah terminal transfer, this study should answer fundamental questions. Can the congestion and overcrowding at Terminal 3 truly be resolved simply by moving Umrah pilgrims to Terminal 2? Is the new operational burden borne by pilgrims, PPIU, and accompanying families smaller than the benefits obtained by the airport operator? Without a transparently published study, the space for speculation about certain interests will grow larger.
From an administrative law perspective, policies that have a broad impact on society should also apply the principle of meaningful public participation. Umrah Travel Organisers, provider associations, airlines, airport managers, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and pilgrim representatives should be involved in a consultation process before the decision is implemented. Such a collaborative approach not only improves the quality of the policy but also strengthens the government’s legitimacy because the decision is made based on input from the parties directly affected.
The issue of transferring the Umrah pilgrim departure terminal is not merely a matter of moving buildings, but also involves dimensions of state administrative law, consumer protection, the right to quality public services, and good governance. If the government’s main objective is to improve services and reduce congestion, then the indicator of success is not simply the change of departure location, but rather the improvement in comfort, efficiency, and pilgrim satisfaction. Conversely, if the policy actually increases burdens, lengthens processes, or creates an impression of discrimination against Umrah pilgrims and PPIU, then data-based evaluation, dialogue with all stakeholders, and testing against the principles of administrative law are necessities that cannot be ignored. Ultimately, every public policy must be oriented towards the public interest, not merely administrative or institutional interests.