Greenpeace Action at the HI Roundabout: Can Criticism Lead to Arrest?

On 20 October 2026, six Greenpeace Indonesia activists unfurled two large banners from the top of the Selamat Datang Monument at the Hotel Indonesia (HI) Roundabout in Central Jakarta. The action was carried out to urge the government to take the climate crisis and its impacts on people's lives more seriously. One of the banners read, “Disasters Are Getting Worse, Life Is Getting Harder, What Is the Government Doing?” Greenpeace Indonesia stated that the action was conducted peacefully and without violence.

The six activists were subsequently evacuated by police officers, together with firefighters and local government personnel. One female activist was reportedly weak and was taken to the Medical and Health Division (Biddokkes) clinic of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya). They were then taken to the police headquarters for registration and released that evening. Polda Metro Jaya denied having arrested the six activists.

This incident raises legal questions: Does putting up banners in public spaces constitute an exercise of freedom of expression, and to what extent are authorities empowered to take action against such activities?

What Is Protected by Freedom of Expression?

Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees everyone's right to associate, assemble, and express opinions. This guarantee is further elaborated in Law No. 9 of 1998 concerning Freedom of Expression in Public (Law No. 9/1998).

Article 1 point 1 of Law No. 9/1998 stipulates that freedom of expression is the right of citizens to express their thoughts orally, in writing, and by other means, freely and responsibly, in accordance with the laws and regulations.

However, its exercise remains subject to certain rules. Article 6 of Law No. 9/1998 requires citizens expressing their opinions in public to respect the rights and freedoms of others, respect moral standards, comply with the law, maintain public safety and order, and preserve national unity and integrity.

What procedures govern the expression of opinions in public?

Article 9 of Law No. 9/1998 regulates four forms of expression of opinions in public, namely:

1. demonstrations or protests;

2. parades;

3. public meetings; and

4. open forums.

These activities may, in principle, be conducted in places open to the public, but not within the grounds of the presidential palace, places of worship, military installations, hospitals, airports or seaports, railway stations, land transportation terminals, or national vital objects. The expression of opinions in public is also excluded on national public holidays. Participants are prohibited from carrying objects that may endanger public safety.

In addition, Article 10 of Law No. 9/1998 requires organizers to submit written notification to the Indonesian National Police (Polri) no later than 3 x 24 hours before the activity begins. This notification must be submitted by a participant, leader, or person in charge of the group. This obligation does not apply to academic activities conducted on campus or religious activities.

The notification must contain information regarding the purpose and objectives, venue and location, route, time and duration, form of activity, person in charge, organizer's identity, props to be used, and number of participants. These requirements are set out in Article 11 of Law No. 9/1998.

It should be noted that notification is not the same as an application for a permit. Law No. 9/1998 establishes a mechanism for notifying the police, rather than requiring a permit for every instance of expressing opinions in public.

On the other hand, Article 12 requires the person in charge to ensure that the activity is conducted safely, orderly, and peacefully. Article 13 also requires Polri to issue an acknowledgment of receipt of the notification, coordinate with the person in charge and the institution to which the activity is directed, and arrange security measures. The police are also responsible for protecting participants and maintaining public safety and order.

What happens if these rules are not complied with? Article 15 of Law No. 9/1998 permits an activity to be dispersed if certain requirements are not met, including those concerning participants' obligations, the location, the prohibition on carrying dangerous objects, notification, and the contents of the notification. Meanwhile, Article 16 provides that participants who engage in unlawful acts may be subject to sanctions in accordance with the laws and regulations. A person in charge who commits a criminal offense may also be subject to an additional penalty, as provided for in Article 17.

Conversely, Article 18 of Law No. 9/1998 provides protection for the exercise of this right. Any person who uses violence or threats of violence to obstruct citizens' right to express opinions in public, where the applicable statutory requirements have been met, may be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of one year.

Accordingly, criticism of the government, including through banners, may constitute a form of expression of opinion. However, its legal assessment does not depend solely on the message conveyed, but also on the form of activity, location, manner of implementation, and compliance with the applicable requirements.

What About the Protection of Cultural Heritage?

The next issue concerns the location where the banners were installed. The Selamat Datang Monument at the HI Roundabout has been designated as a cultural heritage structure under Jakarta Governor's Decree No. 271 of 2024.

The protection of cultural heritage is governed by Law No. 11 of 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage (Law No. 11/2010). Article 66 paragraph (1) prohibits any person from damaging cultural heritage, whether in its entirety or in part. Meanwhile, Article 68 paragraph (1) prohibits the relocation of cultural heritage without a permit.

These provisions demonstrate that cultural heritage is subject to legal protection that must be observed by everyone, including when it is used as a location for expressing aspirations.

Nevertheless, installing banners on a monument cannot automatically be classified as damage to cultural heritage. To determine whether a violation has occurred, it is necessary to examine how the banners were installed, whether the monument's structure was damaged, and whether the action violated other provisions concerning the protection or use of cultural heritage.

Accordingly, the HI Roundabout's status as a cultural heritage site provides a legal basis for preserving and protecting the monument, but does not, in itself, establish that every act of installing banners constitutes a criminal offense.

What Is the Legal Basis for the Authorities' Actions?

In this incident, the authorities evacuated the six activists and took them to Polda Metro Jaya. According to a police statement reported by ANTARA on 21 October 2026, the action was taken to address the activists' condition after they descended from the monument. The police also denied having made any arrests.

Law No. 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police authorizes the police to maintain public security and order and to provide protection, guidance, and services to the public. However, these powers must still be exercised in accordance with the law.

In this context, it is important to distinguish actions taken for safety and the provision of medical assistance from actions undertaken for the purposes of criminal proceedings. The two have different objectives and legal bases of authority and therefore cannot automatically be treated as equivalent.

Evacuation or Arrest: What Is the Legal Basis?

In this case, the police and the advocacy team provided different accounts. Polda Metro Jaya stated that the six activists were taken for medical attention because they were weak and dizzy after descending from the Selamat Datang Monument, and that they had not been arrested.

However, according to Tempo, Daniel Winarta, a representative of the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD), stated that legal counsel had been informed that the activists would be transferred to the Special Criminal Investigation Directorate of Polda Metro Jaya. After waiting approximately three hours without receiving clarification regarding the alleged criminal offense, the activists were eventually released at around 8:30 p.m. Western Indonesian Time (WIB). According to Daniel, their identities were merely recorded, and they were not questioned.

These differing accounts raise questions regarding the purpose and legal basis of the authorities' actions. Taking someone to a police station does not automatically constitute an arrest. However, if that person is not free to leave because of restrictions imposed by the authorities, it is necessary to examine whether the action had a valid legal basis.

Arrest is also not a mandatory procedure for every demonstration participant. Articles 15 and 16 of Law No. 9 of 1998 concerning Freedom of Expression in Public regulate the dispersal of demonstrations under certain circumstances and the sanctions applicable to participants who engage in unlawful acts. However, an alleged violation does not automatically require a participant to be arrested.

If an arrest is made for the purposes of criminal proceedings, the action must satisfy the requirements of criminal procedure law. Article 94 of Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) requires at least two items of evidence to arrest a person suspected of committing a criminal offense.

In this case, Greenpeace stated that the six activists were released because no elements of a criminal offense had been found in their action. This statement represents Greenpeace's account, rather than an official court decision. Based on the available reporting, it remains unclear what criminal offense, if any, was formally alleged against the activists.

Accordingly, the legal issue is not merely whether the police describe the action as an evacuation or an arrest, but whether the action taken was consistent with its purpose, the legal basis of the authorities' powers, and the applicable legal procedures. If the action restricted the activists' freedom for the purposes of criminal proceedings, the authorities should be able to explain its legal basis.