Wahyu Septiana – The blocking of the Bank Mandiri account belonging to Supriyono, coordinator of the United Pati Community Alliance (AMPB), has been highlighted by the Civil Society Coalition.
The account was said to have been blocked when Supriyono was accompanying residents from Pati regency in Central Java to express their aspirations in front of the national House of Representatives (DPR) building in Jakarta on Friday August 21.
The coalition believes the blocking needs to be questioned because the account contains personal funds as well as money donated by the public which is used to meet the needs of the action participants.
The value of the inaccessible funds is said to reach around 80.9 million rupiah. The coalition suspects that the blocking has the potential to violate legal provisions as well as hamper citizens' activities in expressing their opinions.
Personal funds and donations
Supriyono is known to have come to Jakarta with Pati residents to take part in an action to express their aspirations. In the midst of these activities, access to his Bank Mandiri account was said to be no longer usable.
Yet this account does not only hold Supriyono's personal funds. Some of the funds are said to have come from community donations collected to support the needs of the action participants, ranging from food to transportation and accommodation.
As a result, Padi residents in Jakarta are said to have had difficulty accessing operational funds during activities. At almost the same time, Supriyono's social media account was also reported to have experienced problems.
Request from the authorities
Earlier, Bank Mandiri apologised for the situation experienced by the customer. The bank stated that the blocking was carried out based on a request from law enforcement officials.
However, according to the Civil Society Coalition, this explanation does not answer a number of important questions. These include the institution that submitted the blocking request, the case that is the basis for the action, as well as the relationship between the funds in the account and an alleged criminal act.
The coalition also questioned whether the blocking had been accompanied by permission or court approval in accordance with applicable legal provisions.
"A request by the authorities is not a basis for arbitrarily blocking a citizen's accounts. The authorities and banks must explain who gave the order, what case is being investigated, and what the relationship between the funds is and a criminal act", said the Coalition statement as quoted by TribunJakarta Sunday August 23.
Court permission
The coalition linked this issue to Article 140 of Law Number 20/2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). This provision stipulates that blocking as a coercive measure must first obtain permission from the chairperson of a district court.
The request for an account to be blocked must also explain the criminal case that is being processed, the facts regarding the connection between the object being blocked and the criminal act, as well as the purpose of carrying out the action.
In certain conditions that are considered urgent, accounts can be blocked first. However, investigators are still required to seek approval from the chairperson of a district court no later than 2 x 24 hours after the action is taken.
Therefore, the Coalition considers that citing a request from the authorities does not automatically indicate that the blocking procedure was in accordance with the law. They asked that all the grounds and the procedures used by the authorities in blocking Supriyono's account be clearly disclosed.
Concerns about economic pressure
The Coalition also highlighted that the timing of the blocking was close to activities to convey the aspirations of Pati residents. According to the Coalition, this raises concerns that banking instruments can be used to put pressure on people who are expressing their opinions.
"Restricting access to money for food, transportation and the needs of protest participants is the same as stifling freedom of expression through economic pressure", said the Coalition.
They noted that the right to assemble and express opinions is part of citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, actions by law enforcement officials should not be used to hinder the community from exercising these rights.
Apart from questioning the actions of the authorities, the coalition also asked Bank Mandiri to implement the principle of protecting customers.
They referred to Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) Number 22/2023 that regulates consumer protection principles, including openness, fair treatment, responsible business behaviour and the protection of consumer assets.
The coalition believes that banks need to ensure that every request to limit access to an account comes from an authorised party and has a clear legal basis.
"Banks are not an extension of the hands of the authorities to punish citizens who speak out. Compliance means obeying the law, not complying with every request without checking its validity", asserted the Coalition.
Not just a matter of money
The Coalition believes that the issue of blocking Supriyono's account does not solely involve funds of around 80.9 million rupiah. They are concerned that the case could have a wider impact on public trust in the banking industry if customers feel that their funds can be restricted without adequate explanation.
The public place their money in banks in the hope that the funds are safe and can be used according to their rights. The coalition warned that a loss of customer trust on a wide scale could encourage massive withdrawals of funds and potentially disrupt banking stability.
"The problem is not just Rp 80.9 million in one account. If the public sees that banks can withhold customers' money due to pressure from authorities, what will be damaged is trust in the security of funds in banks", the coalition asserted.
Due to this issue, the Civil Society Coalition is asking Bank Mandiri to reopen Supriyono's account if there was no legal basis and valid court permission or approval.
They also urged banks and related officials to openly explain the institution requesting the blocking, the case that is the basis for the action, as well as the relationship between the account and the alleged criminal act.
In addition, Bank Mandiri is being asked to take responsibility if there are losses arising from blocking and to improve internal mechanisms so that similar actions do not reoccur.
The coalition has also asked the Financial Services Authority (OJK) to conduct an inspection of Bank Mandiri if it finds alleged violations of consumer protection provisions.
Not only the OJK, National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and the Indonesian Ombudsman are being encouraged to investigate allegations of abuse of authority and potential restrictions on citizens' rights in this case.
Meanwhile, the DPR is being asked to hold related parties accountable so that the banking system is not used as an instrument to suppress people who express their aspirations.
The Civil Society Coalition
1. Centre of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS)
2. Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI)
3. CALS (Constitutional and Administrative Law Society)
4. Amnesty International Indonesia (AII)
5. Indonesian Caucus for Academic Freedom (KIKA)
6. Campus Workers Union (SPK)
7. Social Movement Institute (SMI)
8. Andantara Monitor
9. Clean Your Bank Coalition
10. Sajogoyo Institute (SAINS)
11. Catering Workers Movement Trade Union (SB GEBUK)
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was "Rekening Warga Pati Diblokir Saat Demo, Koalisi Sipil Soroti Dugaan Pelanggaran Hukum".]
