In this Introduction, Indonesia’s approach towards refugee protection is contextualized historically and regionally in light of the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). In particular, we describe the legal and policy framework for refugee protection in Indonesia and analyze its underlying norms and values, including the constitutional right to asylum. We explain how the legal framework competes with Law No. 6 of 2011 on Immigration, which facilitates a discretionary, securitized, and ‘humanitarian’ approach to refugee policy, which is inconsistent with Indonesia’s legal responsibilities. In conclusion, we assess both the challenges and opportunities provided by the PR.

The Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR) was a promising step to a better humanitarian response for refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Indonesia. It also provided a much-needed legal framework to validate refugees’ presence and to ground civil -society organizations’ advocacy on their behalf. However, a closer look at the PR and earlier drafts of the document shows serious compromises that: (1) reproduce the notion that refugees are only transiting in Indonesia; (2) frame refugees as passive objects, failing to recognize them as subjects with rights; and (3) prioritize security concerns that position refugees at odds with Indonesian society (masyarakat). Using the “What’s the Problem Represented to be” approach, this article highlights what is included and excluded from the PR and how it falls short of guaranteeing meaningful protection for refugees while living in Indonesia.

This article assesses the responsibility of local governments in Indonesia for the management of refugee care, following the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (the “PR”). It highlights the limited authority of local governments in handling refugee issues—which is an issue that cuts across several national legal and administrative regimes including Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, and Immigration. This article focuses on the constraints of local political dynamics and budgeting in allocating local government funds for refugee care. In addressing these concerns, the authors argue that the PR should be amended to explicitly define the role of local governments in managing refugee issues and to include the regional revenue and expenditure budget as a source of funding. In addition, the authors argue that local governments that are hosting refugees should establish relevant local regulations for implementation of the PR.

This article analyses the “local turn” in refugee governance in Indonesia through a comparative case-study of two cities: Makassar and Jakarta. It compares how these two cities have responded to the obligations to provide alternative accommodation to detention, imposed upon them by the Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). While the shift to non-custodial community shelters has been widely praised, we discuss issues that arose when the national government shifted the responsibility for providing accommodation for refugees to local governments, without the allocation of the required funds. The outcome has been a general lack of engagement by local governments. By locating this case-study in the wider global trend of “local turns” in the management of refugee issues, we argue that, in Indonesia, the “local turn” in responsibility for refugees is not fostering a protection approach, but has worsened the conditions for refugees.

This article assesses the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees and how it relates to different kinds of bureaucratic labelling of refugees as it unfolds in Indonesia’s region of Kupang. From a politico-historical perspective, Kupang is a useful case-study for elucidating the policy implications of the labelling of refugees, as the region has been hosting different kinds of refugees due to its strategic geographical location that borders Australia and Timor-Leste. Drawing on my fieldwork in Kupang between October 2012 and October 2013, and my intermittent return to the region between January 2017 and February 2019, this article argues that labels for refugees evolve over time in response to the larger sociopolitical situation, but they are formed mostly to serve the interest of the host country rather than those of displaced people. Furthermore, while labelling displaced people as “refugees” has been effective in justifying funding and support, it can also lead to a manipulation of refugee status, and the marginalization and exclusion of refugees.

This article explains the extent to which Indonesia has international obligations to comply with the non-refoulement principle in the absence of ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. While Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees provides the general impression that Indonesia respects the non-refoulement principle, there is no specific text within Indonesian law and policy that regulates the matter. This article argues that Indonesia is legally bound by non-refoulement obligations under international human rights treaties to which it is a party, as well as under customary international law. It examines the extent of Indonesia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and customary international law. It concludes that the Presidential Regulation was a missed opportunity for Indonesia to reinforce its non-refoulement obligations, as illustrated by the recent treatment of Rohingya asylum seekers near Aceh.

Article 28G(2) in Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution reflects a human rights approach to asylum; it guarantees “the right to obtain political asylum from another country,” together with freedom from torture. It imposes an obligation upon the state to give access to basic rights to those to whom it offers asylum, following an appropriate determination procedure. By contrast, in Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees, the Indonesian government’s response to asylum seekers and refugees is conceptualized as “humanitarian assistance,” and through a politicized and securitized immigration-control approach. We argue that the competition between these three approaches—the human right to asylum, humanitarianism, and immigration control—constitutes a “triangulation” of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia, in which the latter two prevail. In light of this framework, this article provides a socio-political and legal analysis of why Article 28G(2) has not been widely accepted as the basis of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia.

Earlier studies have examined the discriminatory effects of laws and policies against the adherents of indigenous beliefs—Aliran Kepercayaan—in Indonesia. However, those studies do not show how the politics of law were developed through the prior sociopolitical processes in Indonesia’s legislative history. This study analyzes how and why the government initiated and later put an end to discrimination against adherents of Aliran Kepercayaan—at least in the realm of population administration. Under the New Order era, political battles gave birth to the politics of law discriminating against the Aliran Kepercayaan adherents. Weakening political resistance in the Reformasi era as well as judicial review before the Constitutional Court forced the government to partially relax its discriminatory laws and policies. Nonetheless, progressive initiatives from secular nationalist parties have yet to be taken in order to further ensure equality for all minority—religious—groups within Indonesian society before the law.