Regulation and law enforcement on the protection of halal products in Indonesia

Abstract

The protection of halal products in Indonesia refers to consumer protection laws based on the Article 1 Number 10 of Law Number 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) Law. This paper describes the description of law enforcement in three phases, the law enforcement period which refers to the Consumer Protection Act, the law enforcement phase which refers to the period of the Halal Product Guarantee Act, and the phase after the issuance of the work copyright law. The method used in this paper is normative qualitative, which refers to statistical data from the police, related institutions such as governments and consumer protection foundations, also refers to court decisions. For the overview, the obstacles in the enforcement of the law is obtained through interviews. The novelty of this research is an effort to make understanding of halal products in Indonesia based on protecting the Indonesian Muslim community, which is different from other countries which make it a superior halal tourism material. In addition, there are efforts to strengthen the application of the JPH Law in legal court cases, because the law is not used because it is frail. These data are presented in a descriptive form that can provide an overview of law enforcement related to Halal Product Guarantee in the practical level.

Keywords:

• JPH Law
• consumer
• halal product
• law enforcement
• protection

1. Introduction

Globalization which had become a major world development trend has created relativity in the time and place boundaries. Many policies which made in various countries in the world can no longer be limited by ethnicity, religion, and population groups, but are made more likely based on considerations of broader global interests. Including to what which related to the halal issue. The problem of the halal products, whether goods or services, in the past seemed to be limited only by the interests of the Muslim community. However, in the various literatures (Asnawi et al., 2018; Nurrachmi, 2017), this perspective has shifted. The restaurant industry food manufacturing and even the tourism industry have seen it as an interest (Nurdiansyah, 2018). It makes the discussion about halal products limited to the interests of a particular religion. Hence, the policies in regard to the guarantees of halal products are interpreted differently. The issue of halal product certification and labelling in the international trading system, for example, is not only made in order to protect the consumers, but also as a strategy to face the challenges of globalization by the enactment of the free markets system, both on a regional scale ASEAN-AFTA, NAFTA, the European Economic Community, and in the market-free world as in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since long time ago, the international trading system had recognized the halal provisions in CODEX which are supported by several influential international organisations including WHO, FAO, and WTO (Charity, 2017). Indonesia which is known as the largest Muslim population country in the world, with a population of 237.53 million Muslims as of 31 December 2021. This number is equivalent to 86.9% of the country’s population, which reaches 273.32 million people. As a Muslim majority country, this number will politically influence many policies which made by the Indonesian government. It’s not solely related to the discrimination of the belief of the people, but the necessity of providing the most essential need of the community member, as long as it is not violating the rights of other religion communities in the context of worship and the social life people.

If we take a look at the Islamic law, there is a standard rule or Islamic legal maxim formulated by the classical Muslim scholars which is al-aşlu fī al-asyyāʼ al-ibāḥah au al-ḥurmah (whether the original law of everything is permissible/halal or unlawful) (As-Suyuthi, 1920). At least, this fiqh rule created two principle branches or two maxims. The first rule or maxim is al-aşlu fī al-asyyāʼ al-ibāḥah ḥattā yadull ad-dalīl ʻalā at-taḥrīm (the original law of everything is permissible/halal until there is evidence that forbids it). This rule was promoted by the majority of the Shafi’i school of scholars such as as-Suyuthi (d. 911 H) and most of the Hanafi school of jurists based on a number of verses and several hadiths (Al- Burnu & Shidqi, 1996). One of them is the argument of the Koran from QS al-Baqarah [2]:29 which states that Allah created everything on earth for humans. That means it is a gift. Something that is given will automatically be owned. Whatever is owned must be allowed to be used (Al- Hamawi & Al-Abbas Ahmad, 1984 Az-Zarkasyi, 1983). This first rule is also reinforced by QS al-Anʻām [6]:145 which states that there is no unclean food except carrion, running blood, and pork. Therefore, all food without a halal label is lawful as long as it is halal, except for food that has clear arguments for its prohibition. The second rule or maxim, al-aşlu fī al-asyyāʼ at-taḥrīm ḥattā yadull ʻalā al-ibāḥah (the original law of everything is haram until there is evidence that justifies it). The one who formulated this rule was Abu Hanifah (d. 150 H) (As-Suyuthi, 1920), a scholar of the Hanbali school of thought and the Mu’tazilah. This method is built from the argument of QS an-Naḥl [16]: 116 and a popular hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Refering that everything in the universe actually belongs to Allah (Al- Burnu & Shidqi, 1996). Therefore, it is not permissible to use anything except with the permission of the owner, Allah (Al- Burnu & Shidqi, 1996). From this second maxim, it can be concluded that the halal certification is an urgency. Imam al-Ghazali also stated that there are several levels of halal and haram (Al-Qasimi, 1985). He said; (1) Protecting yourself from something that is considered unlawful according to Jurisprudence experts, this is a minimum standard. (2) Protect yourself from something that is potentially unlawful, even though it is allowed by some scholars. In other words, the status is doubtful (doubtful) between halal and haram. (3) Leaving something that is not unlawful and not doubtful, but is feared to lead to things that are unlawful. (4) Something that is not haram, is not doubtful, and does not have the potential to bring about things that are haram, but obtained it not because of Allah or not with the intention of providing energy to worship Allah. Muslims are always asked to maintain halal at least at the initial level, that is, to protect themselves from something that is unlawful according to Islamic jurisprudence experts (Al-Qasimi, 1985).

Related to the Islamic studies approach above, the need for halal products has also become a growing issue. This is due to the fact that the majority of the Indonesian population needs some kind of protection asas it not only relates to the context of worship, health quality assurance, but it also benefits the whole ummah. This of course creates an obligation for the state to implement a production and distribution system of goods and services that are guaranteed to be halal. There are two things that attract the attention of the author relating to this are; First, how is the understanding or perspective built by policy makers on this issue and how is the law enforcement system. In that case, the security system that should be carried out by the government regarding goods and services in Indonesia is still very limited. This can be seen from the many questions about this problem in the community. Some examples of cases that have arisen related to the halal/lawfulness of a product are the issue of halal vaccines which has recently been a debate. COVID prevention policy efforts through vaccinations Have been constrained because people are still questioning the halal nature of the vaccines used in Indonesia. Through the decision of the Supreme Court (MA), Number 31 P/HUM/2022, the Supreme Court Decision contains that based on the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (1) Law Number 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantees, vaccines can be interpreted as goods originating from genetically engineered products, or chemical products that are used, or utilized by the public, must have a halal certificate when they enter, circulate, and are used in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.

Based on the perspective established in the decision, it is only natural that the state provides requirements for all products that enter and circulate in Indonesia. However, do all goods and services that already exist in Indonesia (not imported products) also have to have a halal certificate? In practice, this becomes a problem when the halal label is attached to products made within Indonesia. The second question is related to the context of Indonesian society as a Muslim-majority society. As a Muslim community that forms the majority in a certain area, every product produced should meet the standards of halal products. So, should the inspection of the qualifications of a guaranteed halal product also be applied to products produced by Muslim families? This question becomes interesting. Because how many halal product guarantees will be attached to each product. Is a Padang restaurant, or a Tegal food stall, for example, required to take care of halal product guarantees for the food they make? And finally, to whom will the provisions on halal product guarantees apply?

Referring to Bentham’s view (Bentham, 2000), the purpose of law is to provide the greatest benefit and happiness to as many people as possible. The concept is to put benefit as the main goal of law. The value is the greatest happiness for as many people as possible. Judgement of the good or bad, the fair or unfair of law really depends on whether it is able to give happiness to humans or not. Benefit is defined as the same as happiness (Bentham, 2000). So, in the context of law enforcement, how the law is enforced and how it is enforced is a measure of the acceptance of that law by society and becomes the parameter of happiness that it regulates (Bentham, 2000). Regarding the regulation of halal product guarantees in Indonesia, the value of the benefits of these provisions becomes a big question if the legal politics that are built are not well formulated. On the one hand, it is true that protection for Muslims is guaranteed by the existence of this regulation. However, on the other hand, the existence of this legal product could prove to be an additional burden for the business world, most of whom are Muslim entrepreneurs. This problem seems to be a cliché, but referring to Law Number 33 of 2014 on the Halal Product Guarantee Law (hereinafter referred to as the JPH Law), every product traded in the territory of Indonesia must be halal certified as stipulated in Article 4 of the JPH Law which formulates that “Products that enter, circulate, and are traded in the territory of Indonesia shall be certified Halal”. However, this obligation is excluded for products containing ingredients that are not halal or prohibited in Article 24 of the JPH Law (Mashudi, 2015). In the view of the author, this raises the question of the effectiveness of this law, bearing in mind, isn’t it easier to regulate a small number of things rather than a large number? Or is managing the interests of many people easier than managing the interests of a few? In Indonesia, regulating what is haram is of course easier because there are far more halal things.

If referring to the narrow view of the criminalization of a rule of law, then the act that is prohibited should be an act that is contrary to societal norms and not the other way around. So, dealing with specific, rigid and limited things should be easier to implement because it is not easy for law enforcers to apply statutory provisions in more cases than few. In relation to halal products, how many supervisors are needed to carry out supervision and provide halal products if they are to be seriously implemented in Indonesia? To sum up, this paper will try to provide an overview of how the politics of Indonesian criminal law is built with regard to issues related to the history of regulations relating to halal products and law enforcement. The research method used in this paper is normative descriptive. This method describes how the politics of Indonesian criminal law is built to provide protection for the production, distribution, and consumption of halal products for the wider community. Therefore, this research relies on secondary data, such as court verdicts and studies on halal regulations. The data used was obtained through library research covering various laws, police statistics, classical Islamic literature, various related literature and court decisions which were analysed qualitatively. The data that was successfully collected was then analyzed using the Bentham approach to assess the extent to which the JPH Law was useful, and compared with the results of court decisions in Indonesian courts. From this analysis, it will be seen how effective the JPH Law is or its frail.

2. Dynamics of halal product policy in Indonesia

Management of halal matters has started with the Decree of the Minister of Health No. 280/Men.Kes/Per/XI/1976 dated 10 November 1976 on Circulation Provisions and Labelling of Foods Containing Ingredients Derived from Pork. This regulation requires that all food and drinks containing pork be affixed with a label that reads “contains pork” and is given a picture of a whole pig in red on a white background. The Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the Indonesian Food and Beverage Entrepreneurs Association (GAPMMI), distributed free “contains pork” labels to companies that needed it. The inclusion and use of the new “halal” label is officially regulated by the Joint Decree of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Religion No. 427/Men.Kes/SKB/VIII/1985 and No. 68 of 1985 on The Inclusion of the Writing “halal” on Food Labels on 12 August 1985. In this regulation, food and beverage manufacturers make halal labels after reporting the material composition and processing to the Ministry of Health. Supervision is assisted by the Food Registration Assessment Team, Directorate General of Drug and Food Control, Ministry of Health. This team consists of elements from the Ministry of Religion. MUI itself was only involved in handling halal labelling after the formation of LPPOM MUI in 1989 (LPPOM MUI, 2008).

In 2012, there was a case of the use of pig skin in shoes with the brand “Kicker” which then became popular. Winarto (48), a BUMD employee, reported SW, Director of PT Mahkota Petriendo Indoperkasa, for alleged criminal acts of consumer protection to the Metro Jaya Police Service Center. The company was suspected of using pig skin for its “Kickers” shoe products. Winarto and his colleague Beni Hidayat went to Sogo at Plaza Senayan to buy shoes. The shoes belonging to the complainant were affixed with a halal sticker and read “pig skin lining”/made of pig skin (Pruwanto, 2013). Report of the registered reporting party with report number LP/3978/XI/2012/PMJ/Ditreskrimsus regarding consumer crime article 8 paragraph (1) letter H in conjunction with article 61 paragraph (1) RI Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. In dealing with the Kicker shoe case, officers were unsure about applying the provisions in Article 8 paragraph (1) letter H in conjunction with Article 61 paragraph (1) of RI Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. This is because shoe products are not included in the category of food, medicine, or cosmetics as stated in the MUI Fatwa Number 4 of 2003 on Standardization of Halal Fatwa, which was used as reference at that time. In its development, several other Fatwas that were not related to the three categories of goods as stated in the MUI Fatwa Number 4 of 2003 were issued. For example, the Ijtima` Ulama of the MUI Fatwa Commission III, January 24–25 2009, in West Sumatra, which stated that smoking is haram for children. However, this later received a different response from the Fatwa regarding smoking laws in Muhammadiyah issued by the Tarjih and Tajdid Council of the Central Leadership of Muhammadiyah through decision NO. 6/SM/MTT/III/2010. In this decision, Muhammadiyah firmly gave smoking law a haram status. The cases of cigarettes and shoes illustrate the confusion among officials in discussing the halal nature of products other than food, medicine, and cosmetics. The fatwas regarding the halal-haram nature of products outside of those three still vary and differ between mass Islamic organisations in Indonesia.

In subsequent developments, JPH Law is an opportunity for the implementation of a protection system for citizens. The purpose of establishing the JPH Law is to provide responsibility for the government or public bodies to be more responsible for every product or service circulating in Indonesia (LPPOM MUI, 2008). Another objective is an opportunity for citizens to have more freedom to access every halal product they consume. According to its formal and basic law, the matters regulated in the JPH Law mostly include public law. That means the substance of the JPH Law is aimed more at protecting the public interest. One of the bases for the inclusion of the JPH Law in the area of public law can be seen from the “considering” section of the Law. In the “considering” section, it is stated that in order to ensure that every adherent of a religion can worship and carry out their religious teachings, the state is obliged to provide protection and guarantees regarding the halal product that the public consumes and uses. The use of criminal sanctions is an interesting matter in the provisions of this law (Amrani & Ali, 2015). It is different from the previous provisions which are voluntary. With the existence of criminal sanctions, there is a coercive nature in their effectiveness. In this case, the criminal act of guaranteeing halal products is a series of prohibited and disgraceful acts by law, in relation to activities to ensure the halal of a product, which includes the provision of materials, processing, storage, packaging, distribution, sale and presentation of products in the form of goods or services related to food, drinks, drugs, cosmetics, chemical products, biological products, genetically engineered products, as well as consumer goods that are used or utilised by the public (Mashudi, 2015). Furthermore, the halal nature of a product is determined based on Islamic law and halal certificates. Then, the Halal Product Process is a series of activities to ensure a product is halal. A Halal Certificate is an acknowledgment of the halal nature of a product issued by BPJPH (Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency) based on a written halal fatwa issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI).

Criminal aspects in the JPH Law are regulated in the formulation of sanctions. Provisions regarding prohibition as a crime in guaranteeing legal certainty of the halal of a product, contained in Article 56 and Article 57 of the JPH Law are;

1. Article 56 of the JPH Law defines business actors that do not keep halal products that have gained the Halal Certificate referred to in Article 25 letter b shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five) years or a fine of up to Rp2.000.000.000,00 (two billion rupiah).

2. Article 57 of the JPH Law, everyone involved in the implementation process JPH formulas that do not maintain the confidentiality of the information contained in the submitted business actors as referred to in Article 43 shall be punished with imprisonment of two (2) years or a fine of up to Rp2.000.000.000,00 (two billion rupiah).

In this provision, there is no qualification or weighting for perpetrators of criminal acts regarding halal status. Even though it is generally understood that the perpetrators of these crimes are mostly carried out by corporations, even those at a multi-national level. Matters relating to corporations only exist in the formulation of Article 43, which states that everyone involved in the process of guaranteeing halal products must keep the formula contained in the information submitted by business actors confidential.

The interesting thing about the JPH Law is that it only regulates sanctions for halal certificate holders who violate their obligations (Hasan, 2014). However, this law does not contain any sanctions for business actors who do not apply for the certification. It is understood that it is very difficult to certify a large number of products and the qualifications of producers of goods and services, especially for those who come from home businesses or small producers. No exception related to the cost of certification. So, in the elucidation section of this law, it is formulated that in order to expedite the implementation of JPH, this law provides a role for other parties such as the Government through the state revenue and expenditure budget, regional governments through the regional revenue and expenditure budget, companies, social institutions, religious institutions, associations, and communities to facilitate halal certification costs for micro and small business actors. In October 2021, the Government through the Ministry of Religion launched the One Million Free Halal Certificate Program for Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs/UMKM). Regarding the judicial review of Government Regulation number 31 of 2019 as the implementing regulation of Law Number 33 of 2014 on JPH Law, it was carried out and decided based on Decision Number 48P/HUM2019. The enactment of the JPH Law has implications for changing the halal certification system from voluntary to mandatory. This meant that all products circulating and traded in the Indonesian Territory are required to be halal certified except for non-halal products, in accordance with Article 4 of the JPH Law whose formulation is:

Article 4 of Law Number 33 of 2014 on Guarantee of Halal Products

Products that enter, circulate, and are traded in the territory of Indonesia must be halal certified.

The change in the halal certification system from voluntary to mandatory has legal consequences in the form of state responsibility. Halal certification is still considered a burden due to the lack of knowledge possessed by MSME actors and also the large cost of certification. This is the objection of the applicant in this judicial review, namely HALAL WATCH. However, the application was later rejected by the Supreme Court because it was deemed not to contradict existing laws and regulations. Since 2019, the Government has re-implemented the mandate of the Law regarding the granting of halal status of a product through the Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency, hereinafter abbreviated as BPJPH, an agency formed by the Government to carry out the JPH Law.

In addition to the provisions in the JPH Law, provisions regarding halal product guarantees can be found in various other regulations, namely;

(a) Law Number 23 of 1992 about Health, ratified on 17 September 1992.

Article 21 letter d contains the phrase “Other provisions” which in the explanation of the paragraph reads: “Other provisions, such as halal words or signs which guarantee that the said food and drinks are produced and processed in accordance with the halal food requirements.

(b) Law Number 7 of 1996 on Food was ratified on 4 November 1996, then revised to become Law Number 18 of 2012 on Food, ratified on 16 November 2012.

Referring to Article 97 paragraph (3) of the Food Law Number 18 of 2012, where this food label must at least inform consumers that one of them in point “e”, is halal for those required. This label is generally written on product packaging as information for consumers who want to buy and consume these food products. Entrepreneurs or companies are responsible for the information stated on the food product label, including the product’s halal claim listed on the label. Business actors are prohibited from submitting misleading information on their product labels.

(c) Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, ratified on 20 April 1999.

Article 8 paragraph (1) letter “h” of this UUPK prohibits business actors from producing and/or trading goods and/or services that do not comply with the provisions for halal production, as stated in the “halal” statement on the label. Based on Article 6 paragraph (1) Decree of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia Number 82/MENKES/SK/I/1996 on the Inclusion of Halal Writing on Food Labels can only be carried out after obtaining approval from the Director General of Drug and Food Control, Ministry of Health (In 2023, the legalisation is under the jurisdiction of Halal Product Assurance Agency/BPJPH). This approval for halal labelling is given to a product that meets the requirements based on the results of an examination carried out by a team from the Ministry of Religion and the Ministry of Health. Products that request permission for a halal label must meet several conditions, which are;

1. meet the requirements of halal food based on Islamic law;

2. produced in accordance with the way of processing Halal food;

The fulfilment of these conditions is proven by a halal certificate issued by the Fatwa Council (MUI) and compliance with health assessment standards based on the provisions of the Ministry of Health. Therefore, not all products have the right to put a halal label unless they have received a halal certificate from the MUI and permission from the Head of the POM Agency, Ministry of Health.

• (d) Instruction of the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 2 of 1991 on Improvement of Guidance and Supervision of Production and Distribution of Processed Foods. In this decree, the government has regulated the provisions for halal labels for certain products to be marketed. A label permit is granted by the Directorate General of Drug and Food Control, Ministry of Health, on the basis of an application from a business actor accompanied by a description of the raw materials, food additives and auxiliary materials used. The product ingredients must be tested in a laboratory determined by the Director General of POM.

• (e) Decree of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia Number 82/Menkes/SK/I/1996 on the Inclusion of the Writing “Halal” on Food Labels, ratified on January 24, 1996. Provisions in No. 82/Menkes/SK/I/1996 is a continuation of the joint decree of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia No. 427/Men.Kes/SKB/VIII/1985 – No. 68 of 1985 on Inclusion of the words “Halal” on Food Labels.

• (f) Decree of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia Number 924/Menkes/SK/VIII/1996 on Amendments to the Decree of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia Number 82/Menkes/SK/I/1996 on the Inclusion of Halal Writing on Food Labels, on August 30, 1996. The decree states clear division of tasks and procedures for issuing Halal Certificates and Halal Labelling. This is the first regulation that regulates the division of tasks.

• (g) Decree of the Minister of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia No. 518 of 2001 on November 30, 2001, on Guidelines and Procedures for Inspecting and Determining Halal Food,

• (h) Decree of the Minister of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia No. 519 of 2001 on November 30, 2001, on Implementing Agency for Halal Food Inspection.

These are provisions relating to or regulating the guarantee of halal products in Indonesia. Discussing halal dynamics becomes complicated because of the reality on the ground that law enforcement is carried out not only from POLRI Headquarters but also from civil investigators from the ministry of agriculture, ministry of health, ministry of religion or even from The Indonesian Food and Drug Authority (BPOM) or MUI. Living in society in Indonesia must adjust to religious values that are still attached, so that if there is a finding that a product is not halal but is sold freely, all agencies feel the need to contribute. Because it is held by many institutions, the pattern of coordination for solving problems becomes complicated.

This is also related to the number of related laws that complicate the choice of regulation by the right law enforcement.

3. Halal and its legal application

In practice, criminal cases related to halal products are very difficult to find in specific statistics. This qualification cannot be found specifically in police statistics. The JPH Law as a legal basis for law enforcers in handling cases related to violations of halal products is not always used. This is related to the existence of other provisions which also regulate criminal threats that are no different than those shown in the following table 1:

Table 1. Table of rules relating to halal law in Indonesia

Law Name	Quantity Threat Penalty
Law Number 23 of 1992 on Health	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years and criminal a maximum fine of Rp. 300,000,000.00 (three hundred million rupiah).
Law Number 7 of 1996 on Food ratified November 4, 1996, then revised into Law Number 18 of 2012 on Food, ratified November 16, 2012	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 2 (two) years or a maximum fine of Rp. 4,000,000,000.00 (four billion rupiah).
Law Number 8 of 1999 on Protection Consumers, ratified on April 20, 1999	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years or criminal a maximum fine of Rp 2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiah).
Law Number 33 of 2014 on Guarantee Halal Products (JPH)	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years or criminal maximum fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiah).
Law Number 41 of 2014 on revised based on Law Number 18 of 2009 on Livestock and Animal health	criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years and a criminal a maximum fine of IDR 10,000,000.00 (ten billion rupiah).

Looking at the comparison in the table 1 above, the criminal penalties in the JPH Law are not too high compared to the criminal penalties in other laws. However, in this case, the consideration of the availability of evidence examination facilities for example, or the understanding of law enforcers on the existence of this law becoming the JPH Law is not the main option in acting against perpetrators of violations of halal products.

This can be seen from the author’s search for court decisions related to the problem of violations of halal products between 2018 and 2021 on the Supreme Court decision page. There aren’t many and they are easy to find. Some of the decisions that have permanent legal force at the first level and at the cassation level are as follows:

(a) Decision of the Sleman District Court Number 484/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Smn

Short description of case: Actions are carried out in the following manner. Whereas previously the witness ASMUI reports to the witness RUKMONO MARHAM, S.Pi. as the Head of the Moyudan District Economy and Development Section (EKOBANG), that the witness ASMUI bought beef at Mrs ANI’s meat stall at the Ngijon Market, which was IDR 30,000/kg cheaper compared to Godean Market, and that the meat purchased there are two colours which are dark white and pale white along with a different aroma and also a different taste from beef meat in general. Even though fresh beef was clearly stated on the banner at Mrs ANI’s stall, HALAL BU ANI. To follow up on the report on Thursday 3 October 2019 at around 09.30 WIB, officers from the Sleman Regency Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Office and other officers bought a meat sample at the meat stall belonging to the defendant Nuraini as much as 3 ounces of beef. These samples were referred to the Wates Veterinary Center (BBVet) for a species identification test. The results of the sample test from the BBVet, Number: 18136/PK.310/F.5.D/10/2019 on 11 October 2019 states that the sample sent was positive for the pig/pork species. The Moyudan Police along with the market service summoned and warned the Defendant Nuraini, where she made a statement at the Moyudan District Office to not mix selling beef with pork.

Article charged: Article 91A Law Number 41 year 2014 on Revised Law Number 18 year 2009 on Livestock and Animal Health.

Punishment: Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and 8 (eight) months and a fine of IDR 10,000,000 (ten million rupiah)

(b) Decision of the Sungailiat District Court 81/Pid.Sus/2019/PN_Sgl

Short description of case: Defendant OESIN EFENDI a.k.a ASIN, proven guilty of committing the crime of “organising activities or processes of production, storage, transportation and/or distribution of food that do not meet the Food Sanitation Requirements” “which is regulated and punishable by crime in Article 135 in conjunction with Article 71 paragraph (2) Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food. In consideration, it was found that “the defendant has a halal certificate issued by the Bangka MUI but the molasses material in the defendant’s soy sauce factory has been contaminated from dead lizards in storage of the molasses material and the defendant did not include the composition of the Ajinomoto ingredient (flavouring) and molasses ingredients on the product label packaging. Unfortunately, this was not a consideration for the authorities to use the JPH Law in this case.

Article charged: Article 135 in conjunction with article 71 paragraph (2) of Law No.18 of 2012 on Food

Punishment: 2 months imprisonment

(c) Decision of the Tulungagung District Court Number 184/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Tlg

Short description of case: the defendant SINGGIH GUNARSO has been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing the crime of “Having produced and traded goods that do not comply with the Halal Provisions for Producing, As the “Halal” Statement Is Put on the Label. The soy sauce company has the stamp “KUDA”, where in the packaging it is found on the packaging label that says 100% without the support of a halal certificate.

Article charged: Article 62 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 8 paragraph (1) letter h Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection.

Punishment: 6 months imprisonment with 1 year probation

(d) Decision of Putussibau District Court number 3/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn PTS.

Short description of case: The defendant traded Frankfirtet brand chicken sausages, Arya brand fish balls, Haiyen brand fish balls, which did not include size, net weight, composition, instructions for use, date of manufacture, side effects and also not in accordance with the required standards because they do not have a label and writing SNI and a halal label from the Indonesian government.

Article charged: Article 62 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 8 paragraph (1) letter a Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection.

Punishment: A fine of 5 million rupiah.

(e) Decision of the Putussibau District Court Number 4/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Pts

Short description of case: In this case the defendant sold ±500 (five hundred) kg worth of CSR brand sugar, 384 (three hundred and eighty four) cans of Kingwaybrand alcoholic drinks, Benson brand alcoholic drinks worth Rp. 400,000,00 (four hundred thousand rupiah) with the provision that if the fine is not paid, it will be replaced by imprisonment for 3 (three) days locally. ±500 (five hundred) kg of CSR brand sugar, 384 (three hundred eighty four) cans of Kingway brand alcoholic drinks, 480 (four hundred eighty) bottles of Benson brand alcoholic drinks, owned by the defendant did not meet or did not comply with the required standards and provisions of laws and regulations. Article charged: violating Article 8 paragraph (1) letters a, g, h, i, j Jo Article 62 paragraph (1) of the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection.

Punishment: 1 month and 15 days imprisonment

(f) Decision of the Yogyakarta District Court Number: 510/Pid.C/2019/PN.YyK

Short description of case: The defendant RURI MURYANTO as mentioned above has been proven legally and convincingly according to law guilty of committing the following actions: INSTALLING A HALAL MART ADVERTISEMENT THAT HAS NOT HAVE A LICENSE/LICENCES EXPIRED as stipulated in the Regional Regulation of the City of Yogyakarta Number 2 of 2015 in the Minutes of Investigation of Regional Regulation Violations.

Article charged: Regional Regulation of the City of Yogyakarta Number 2 of 2015

Punishment: A fine of Rp. 400,000, - (four hundred thousand rupiah) provided that if the fine is not paid, it will be replaced by imprisonment for 3 (three) days.

(g) Decision of the Bandung District Court Number 727/Pid.B/2020/PN Bdg

Short description of case: The defendants contacted HERI (not yet caught) to buy/order wild boar/boar meat at a price of Rp. 37000.00 (thirty-seven thousand rupiah)/kg. Next, HERI delivered the order to the defendants, who usually ordered 60 kilograms or 1 quintal of wild boar meat. After the defendants received raw boar/boar meat from HERI, they processed every 50 kg of wild boar meat by smearing ½ kg of cow’s blood and ¼ kg of a chemical in the form of borax/acid which was used to disguise the smell of wild boar meat into the smell of beef and to keep the wild boar meat fresh. Furthermore, the wild boar meat is cut and wrapped in plastic where each plastic contains ½ kg and 1 kg of wild boar meat ready for sale. For wild boar meat in the form of meatballs, the defendants processed it first by mixing every 10 kg of wild boar meat with 5 kg of beef innards, where the meat was then brought to the market to be finely grounded. After being finely grounded, the meat is mixed with wheat flour, starch, spices and borax/boric acid and then the meat is formed into small balls which are then boiled until cooked into meatballs. After that, the meatballs are put into plastic and ready to be sold.

Article charged: Article 62 Paragraph (1) of Law no. 08 of 1999 on consumer protection.

Punishment: 2 years in prison

(h) Decision of the TAKENGON District Court Number 120/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Tkn

Short description of case: Since 2010 until now the defendant has been producing his own meatballs and some have also received wages for grinding the meatballs, the raw materials of which are brought by the people themselves. From year to year, the defendant’s meatball grinding business has grown from being processed manually to now using a machine. The defendant produced these meatballs to be marketed to the public, especially the people of Aceh Tengah and Bener Meriah. Based on letter number: 279/PK.310/F.5.1/2/2017 on answers to examination results, which is in accordance with the attachment to the PCR test results for identification of meat at Medan Veterinary Center epid number 01170056, out of 11 samples taken, 4 (four) were samples positive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) identification of pig species, namely processed meatballs with positive specimen codes D1 and D6, from the mill with positive specimen codes D5 and from frozen meat with positive specimen codes. However, in the evidence, it is known that the defendant’s meatball mill business, apart from being used to produce raw processed meatballs with his rose flower stamp, also receives milling wages from other members of the public if someone asks to be milled using raw materials brought by the community themselves. Meanwhile, for meatballs, the production uses the ALLANA brand, the defendant officially through UD Jaya Selalu, which is registered with the Integrated Licensing Service Agency in Medan City according to trading business licence No. 3347/3343/1.1/0805/082015 as the official distributor/retailer of PT. Samudra Pangan Lestari Medan in collaboration with PT. Dua Putra Perkasa Pratama, which works directly with Perum Bulog Jakarta on behalf of the Government of Indonesia (Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia) appointed Perum Bulog to cooperate with the Indian government according to procedures and guaranteed halal, based on Proof of Halal Certificate issued by the government of India and the government of the Republic of Indonesia

Article charged: Article 62 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 8 paragraph (1) letter h of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection.

Punishment: free from punishment

From the various decisions above, it is illustrated that consumer protection laws tend to be the main choice. These laws tend to be more popular among law enforcers compared to other laws. There are even courts that use regional law as a basis compared to the JPH Law, even though normatively this is wrong (lex superiori derogat legi inferiori). However, when comparing the number of sanctions imposed by judges, it becomes a big question why the sanctions imposed are so low compared to the criminal penalties in the law. This can be illustrated from the following table 2:

Table 2. Table regarding comparison of judge’s decisions regarding halal crimes in Indonesia

Decision	Punishment	Threat in Chapter
SLEMAN District Court Decision Number 484/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Smn	Criminal prison for 1 (one) year and 8 (eight) months and a fine of IDR 10,000.000,00 (ten million rupiah)	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years and a criminal a maximum fine of IDR 10,000,000,00 (ten million rupiah).
Sungailiat District Court Number 81/Pid.Sus/2019/PN_Sgl	Criminal 2 months imprisonment	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 2 (two) years or a maximum fine of Rp. 4,000,000,000.00(four billion rupiah).
Tulungagung District Court Number 184/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Tlg	6 months imprisonment with 1 year probation period	Criminal imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years or criminal a maximum fine of Rp 2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiah).
Putussibau District Court Number 3/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn PTS.	5 million rupiah fine
Putussibu District Court Number 4/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Pts	Criminal Prison 1 month 15 days
Bandung District Court Decision Number: 706/Pid/B/2015/PN Bdg	Criminal prison for 2 (two) years
Decision of the Takengon District Court 95/Pid.Sus/2019/PNTkn	Free
Decision Yogyakarta District Court: 510/Pid.C/2019/PN.YyK	Fine of Rp. 400,000,00 (four hundred thousand rupiah) with provision if fine the no paid, will replaced with punishment confinement for 3 (three) days	Yogyakarta City Regional Regulation Number 2 of 2015

From the table 2 above, it is recorded that the highest sentence is 2 years in prison. The low level of criminal sanctions imposed, even though it is the authority of the judge, illustrates how the judge sees the seriousness of this halal problem. In this case, the value of the loss and the perpetrators who are not too big becomes part of the judge’s considerations in deciding, other than an apology and a promise not to repeat it. In one free from punishment decision in the table 2 above, the fault was not on the perpetrators because they used ingredients that had been labelled as halal by the government that was later declared to contain pork. What then becomes interesting is that this decision questions how the halal labelling of these products harm consumers.

Continuing with the consideration that the value lost is not that big, the existence of a law on halal product guarantees has been challenged in the Constitutional Court. Verdict No. 5/PUU-XV/2017 was born from a lawsuit where the JPH Law was deemed detrimental to people other than Muslims. The Petitioner is an individual Indonesian citizen who feels aggrieved and/or has the potential to be harmed by his constitutional rights. The constitutional loss in question is that the Petitioner does not get clear restrictions regarding the issue of whether a product is halal or not, both regarding the material and the production process. According to the Petitioner, it is inappropriate for the legislators to make the objective of the JPH Law for “the public”, because the Petitioner feels that he is a member of the public who is not required to obtain a “Halal Product Guarantee”. The law should clearly state that the targets are Muslims or Muslim consumers, as stated in the MUI Fatwa Number 12 of 2009 on Halal Slaughter Certification Standards. In addition, there is no clarity regarding the definition of Islamic law. The Petitioner also questioned that the word “goods” and the word “food” are two separate things. “Goods” related to “food” are not food. Thus, the target of the JPH Law is not food, drink, medicine, cosmetics, chemical products, biological products, or genetically engineered products. The Petitioner also considers that the provisions requiring products that enter, distributed, and traded are halal certified (already declared halal according to Islamic law) will have an impact that a product purchased abroad for final use in Indonesia does not need to be halal certified, because it is not circulating and being traded. Likewise, for online orders for final use, halal certification is not required. Likewise for gifts, a product does not need to be halal certified. However, the Constitutional Court rejected this request.

4. Conclusion

Finally, from the elaboration and description above, an explanation can be seen regarding the dilemma of the implementation and enforcement of the JPH Law whose existence is still considered as something secondary in nature. Obstacles in implementing this law in several cases include;

1. Public understanding, especially law enforcement officials, of the existence of this law seems to be lacking. Even though it has been promulgated since 2014, it is still less popular, for instance, than the consumer protection law;

2. The use of the JPH Law is not very attractive to law enforcers in connection with two things, namely:

   1. Criminal threats that are no different from the food law or consumer protection law which is usually the law being charged,

   2. The need for test methods for halal products that are still not available in many places in Indonesia;

3. In some cases, what is interesting is that the results of production identification stating the presence of other ingredients (pork) even though they already use certified basic ingredients become an interesting fact and at the same time public distrust of the product.

4. In the various judge decisions previously described, the views of law enforcers on the seriousness of the existence of the JPH Law and the importance of law enforcement are not reflected in the existing decisions, especially in view of the low sanctions.

Last but not least, the author simply wants to convey something;

The understanding of halal products in Indonesia is different from the same regulatory objectives in other countries. In Indonesia, the interest of protecting the community is important to ensure that a product is halal or not, for consumption. However, because the majority are Muslim, domestic products are labelled haram as products from minorities which are easier to label than the reverse.

However, products that enter Indonesia from imported products should be treated differently. Halal assurance is important for the issue of imported food, medicine or cosmetics. In relation to the import of this product, it is important for BPOM or Customs institutions to be involved in enforcing the JHP Law.

Mutual understanding between agencies or ministries in the government must clearly lay out the issue of the JPH Law, starting from the pre-production, production, post-production stages, must involve all stakeholders. And, when finally there is a legal case regarding halal products, investigators from the police or civil servants must coordinate with the prosecutor’s office and judges to use the JPH Law, so that this law does not just become an ordinary piece of legality without any influence.

Acknowledgment

This article is a joint writing of several researchers who have concerns in discussing Islamic Law regarding the implementation of Halal Policy in Indonesia. This article was presented at the 6th International Conference on Strategic and Global Studies (ICSGS), in Istanbul. I would like to thank the reviewers from the 6th ICSGS for their invaluable comments and suggestions, which have enriched this article extensively. We are very grateful that this work was supported by the research grant from School of Strategic and Global, Universitas Indonesia.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eva Achjani Zulfa

Eva Achjani Zulfa is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. As an expert on criminal law in Indonesia, Eva is actively involved in community service activities, especially providing her legal expertise to government and state institutions. Now she serves as Vice-director at the University of Indonesia’s School of Strategic and Global Studies. For this work, she invites Imam Khomaeni Hayatullah, Taliya Qory Ismail and Ali Fitriana. This work wants to spread awareness to the general public, then also the judiciary in Indonesia. The concept of halal is a sacred concept for Muslims in Indonesia, so it needs special attention. The continuation of this work is the increasingly solid enforcement of the JPH Law. Other criminal law researchers will continue their writing on the application of the law on halal products.

Taliya Qory Ismail

Eva Achjani Zulfa is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. As an expert on criminal law in Indonesia, Eva is actively involved in community service activities, especially providing her legal expertise to government and state institutions. Now she serves as Vice-director at the University of Indonesia’s School of Strategic and Global Studies. For this work, she invites Imam Khomaeni Hayatullah, Taliya Qory Ismail and Ali Fitriana. This work wants to spread awareness to the general public, then also the judiciary in Indonesia. The concept of halal is a sacred concept for Muslims in Indonesia, so it needs special attention. The continuation of this work is the increasingly solid enforcement of the JPH Law. Other criminal law researchers will continue their writing on the application of the law on halal products.

Imam Khomaeni Hayatullah

Eva Achjani Zulfa is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. As an expert on criminal law in Indonesia, Eva is actively involved in community service activities, especially providing her legal expertise to government and state institutions. Now she serves as Vice-director at the University of Indonesia’s School of Strategic and Global Studies. For this work, she invites Imam Khomaeni Hayatullah, Taliya Qory Ismail and Ali Fitriana. This work wants to spread awareness to the general public, then also the judiciary in Indonesia. The concept of halal is a sacred concept for Muslims in Indonesia, so it needs special attention. The continuation of this work is the increasingly solid enforcement of the JPH Law. Other criminal law researchers will continue their writing on the application of the law on halal products.

Ali Fitriana

Eva Achjani Zulfa is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. As an expert on criminal law in Indonesia, Eva is actively involved in community service activities, especially providing her legal expertise to government and state institutions. Now she serves as Vice-director at the University of Indonesia’s School of Strategic and Global Studies. For this work, she invites Imam Khomaeni Hayatullah, Taliya Qory Ismail and Ali Fitriana. This work wants to spread awareness to the general public, then also the judiciary in Indonesia. The concept of halal is a sacred concept for Muslims in Indonesia, so it needs special attention. The continuation of this work is the increasingly solid enforcement of the JPH Law. Other criminal law researchers will continue their writing on the application of the law on halal products.