Senior Researcher of the Institute for Demographic and Affluence Studies (IDEAS)Yusuf Wibisono delivering his testimony during the material judicial review hearing of several articles in Law No. 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management at the Plenary Courtroom, Tuesday (10/12). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI)—Senior Researcher of the Institute for Demographic and Affluence Studies (IDEAS)Yusuf Wibisono was presented as an expert by the Petitioners of Case No. 97/PUU-XXII/2024 to deliver his testimony on the judicial review of several articles in Law No. 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management. Yusuf stated that Law No. 23 of 2011 eventually harms organizations/people managing zakat and those paying the zakat (mustahik and muzaki).

“The end result of Law No. 23 of 2011 harms Mustahik and Muzaki,” Yusuf said during the hearing under the agenda to hear the testimony of the Petitioners’ witness/expert on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, at the Plenary Courtroom.

Yusuf explained that besides contradicting the principle of the freedom of religion, which the Constitution guarantees, the permit for zakat management, as stipulated in Law No. 23 of 2011, is discriminatory. The strict licensing obligations only apply to the Zakat Management Agency (LAZ) but do not apply to the National Zakat Management Agency (Badan Amil Zakat Nasional or BAZNAS), despite the fact they have the status of the national zakat operators with similar duties and functions: collecting, distributing, and utilizing zakat.

The blatant limitation and marginalization against the LAZs that are permitted to operate based on Law No. 23 of 2011 had caused limited access for Mustahik to benefit from the zakat fund. Meanwhile, as the result of the limitation to LAZ operation by requiring an unfair operational permit, Law No. 23 of 2011 also causes the limitation on the preferences and choices for muzaki in terms of delivering their zakat.

According to Yusuf, zakat performance increases when society manages it. The transparent and accountable work of the Zakat Management Organization (Organisasi Pengelolaan Zakat or OPZ) by the society is preferable and builds trust among those paying the zakat. He said that, in the future, this country needs to make an effort to create a healthy national OPZ structure capable of maintaining trust from muzaki and fulfilling their rights, operating efficiently, and encouraging sustainable social welfare.

In this context, the future national zakat community needs massive consolidation instead of operator expansion, as adopted by Law No. 23 of 2011, which is deemed discriminatory. The OPZ consolidation to expand the scale of OPZ will improve operational efficiency, encourage program innovation for empowerment and its effectiveness, improve the OPZ's response, and facilitate supervision of the national zakat fund management. The OPZ consolidation program can be done in stages by creating a clear and measurable business plan.

Yusuf added that the more interesting and progressive discourse to improve the performance of the national zakat community is encouraging partnerships between the government and OPZ to alleviate poverty. The Zakat Law is supposed to mandate the government to involve OPZ actively in the program to alleviate poverty. The OPZ can participate in the development and empowerment program with the Zakat utilization program. It may open the opportunity for the government to choose a participative approach in its relations with the national zakat community to alleviate poverty, reduce social tensions, and consolidate society.

“The focus of the improvement to Law No. 23 of 2011 is to develop a new national zakat regulator that is solid, independent, credible, strong, and capable of supervising the national zakat well,” Yusuf said.

In addition, the law expert of the Universitas Indonesia, Heru Susetyo, stated that conflict of interest, especially in BAZNAS, emerged due to its dual role as a regulator and operator in managing zakat in Indonesia. This situation can create issues in decision-making and policy-making.

BAZNAS regulates and supervises zakat management and functions as an agency to collect and distribute zakat. This creates unfairness because BAZNAS may create a regulation that benefits itself as a zakat operator while marginalizing other LAZs.

“The policy issued by BAZNAS often regulates the requirement to establish LAZ and the licensing procedure, which limits access to non-governmental agencies in collecting zakat. It creates inequality in the zakat ecosystem where BAZNAS has more control over zakat management than other institutions,” Heru stated.

Also read:

Dompet Dhuafa, Jakarta Zakat Forum Challenge Zakat Management Law

Dompet Dhuafa and Forum Zakat Revise Petition on Zakat Management Law Review

Zakat Management Review Hearing Postponed

Govt: BAZNAS and LAZ Complement the Zakat Management System

LAZISNU Argues the Enactment of Zakat Management Law Improves Public Trust

Testimony Hearing on Zakat Management Law Review Postponed

The Petitioners of this case consist of Yayasan Dompet Dhuafa Republika, Perkumpulan Forum Zakat Jakarta, and individual Arif Rahmadi Haryono. They appointed Bambang Widjojanto and Denny Indrayana to the legal team. The Petitioners' activities, both as institutions and private individuals, are closely related to the practice of zakat management.

Petitioners who are muzaki (zakat operators) found themselves obstructed and harmed in their activities due to regulations regarding zakat management under articles and paragraphs contained in Law No. 23 of 2011 that are deemed harmful. The community organizations that have been established have and are still conduction education, campaigns, and dissemination about Zakat, Infak Sedekah (ZIS) gradually until now.

The Amil Zakat Institution (LAZ), which has existed for a long time, hoped that Baznas and LAZ would have equal roles and duties. They cited the regulation regarding state and private banks, which are equal, as well as the role of the Bank of Indonesia, which is responsible for monetary policy, regulating and supervising the financial system, and maintaining the stability of the rupiah.

The Petitioners deemed that the existence of Article 5 paragraph (1) implicitly and explicitly shows that the main purpose of the establishment of Baznas is to take over the collection of zakat that has been done by the community to be managed by the state and negate the history of the community management of zakat. In fact, when Baznas was newly established, to provide learning and experience to Baznas, there was cooperation in the management of zakat between Baznas and Dompet Dhuafa Republika Foundation, known as Baznas Dompet Dhuafa. The cooperation was done because Baznas has no experience in managing zakat.

According to the Petitioners, the regulations deny the history. For example, they excluded the zakat management institutions that existed before Baznas was established in the drafting of regulations regarding zakat management. The Law also does not facilitate the zakat management community.

On the petitum, the Petitioners plead the Court to declare Article 38 and Article 43 paragraph (4) contradict the 1945 Constitution and do not have legally binding power. Meanwhile, the Petitioners also ask the Court to re-interpret Article 5 paragraph (1), Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 16 paragraph (1), Article 17, Article 18 paragraph (2), Article 19, Article 20, Article 41, and Article 43 paragraph (3) as per their requests. (*)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---