TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Developer Kapuk Naga Indah, sued by its buyers, ought not to have overreacted. By doing this, the developer gives the impression that it is trying to divert the issue from one of returning buyers' money to the uploading of a recorded meeting. The developer would instead be better off focusing on the basic issue at hand. Police should also not be too quick to process the uploading of the recording. Their haste to process a case which is still unclear only opens them up to suspicions that they are defending the developer. All parties should have waited for the resolution of Kapuk Naga's dispute with its property buyers.

The dispute began when nine purchasers of property on the reclaimed land in Jakarta Bay sued Kapuk Naga, the developer of Islands C and D. They demanded the return of their deposits and payment installments totaling Rp36.7 billion. Their demands are the result of the current uncertainty surrounding the status of the reclaimed islands. Kapuk Naga refused instead, threatening to impose penalties on the buyers if the remaining installments were not paid. An effort by the buyers to take the matter to the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency also failed. The Agency asked both parties to take the matter to the high court.

Before this happened, a meeting was held between the plaintiffs and the developer. There was a debate, which someone recorded. That recording was later uploaded onto social media and quickly went viral.

Kapuk Naga took issue with the distribution of the recording, complaining to the police about it on grounds of defamation. It also claimed damages of Rp100 billion from the buyers because the video damaged its prospects for marketing its properties. Oddly, the police reacted swiftly. The person who made the video was named as a suspect, and two of the nine buyers were interrogated as witnesses. It is unclear who uploaded the video, as it was none of the nine buyers.

Two regrettable points resulted from this dispute. First, Kapuk Naga’s action in complaining to the police about the distribution of the video. The buyers had a legitimate legal basis to sue: they accuse the developer of violating Law No. 8/1999 on Protection of Consumers and civil law. Article 9 of that law states that anything that is not yet certain may not be sold. Furthermore, Article 1338 of The Civil Code requires that a sale transaction can only be completed once all permits and legal requirements are met.

Kapuk Naga then diverted this issue to the video uploaded onto social media. This case is like the criminalization of Prita Mulyasari, who took issue with the service provided by Omni International Hospital in an email six years ago. She was reported to the police, tried, convicted, and even imprisoned.

Kapuk Naga’s action in reporting the uploading of the recording to the police not only diverts attention away from the dispute over the purchases but is also an act of intimidation towards the buyers. It should have first resolved its dispute with them. Even if those negotiations should fail, the path to achieving justice would still remain open.

The second issue is the action of the police in rushing to act on Kapuk Naga’s complaint. The uploading of the video is inextricably linked to the dispute of the developer with the buyers. Actually, the fact that the developer continues to market its property despite the reclaimed land’s uncertain legal status should be scrutinized instead. Police ought to just postpone their investigation of the video until the dispute is over.

This criminalization of consumers once again shows the danger of the defamation articles in the Criminal Code or Law No. 11/2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions. With this law in hand, anyone can easily misuse its ‘pliable’ articles against other people, even on grounds that make no sense at all.

Read the full article in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine