Regarding The Clash In Pancoran, Ombudsman: The Metro Jaya Police Should Have Disbanded From The Beginning

JAKARTA - The Jakarta Raya Ombudsman regrets the attitude of Polda Metro Jaya, in this case the South Jakarta Police for being late in anticipating the clash at Pancoran.

This is because the Head of the Greater Jakarta Ombudsman Representative, Teguh Nugroho, considers that the initial conflict that sparked the clash between the Pemuda Pancasila mass organization and the Pancoran residents did not occur spontaneously.

"Polda Metro Jaya should have been able to detect potential security disturbances from the start, and regionally this is the responsibility of the Pancoran Police Chief," Teguh told reporters, Saturday, March 20.

Then, the South Jakarta Metro Police Chief should ensure that the handling is persuasive, including dispersing the crowd from the start, both from the mass organizations and residents.

To prevent further clashes from happening again, Teguh asked the South Jakarta Police to use their authority to issue a police report model A to thoroughly investigate the incident.

"This is important to do to build public confidence in the police's ability to enforce the law, including the use of force by parties who do not have the authority," he said.

Previously, the clash took place at Pancoran Buntu, the Pasar Minggu route on Wednesday, March 17. The residents of Pancoran Buntu II were attacked by a mass organization known to be on the side of PT Pertamina.

The incident caused a number of people to be injured. Reportedly, the clash involved residents who were accompanied by the Pancoran United Solidarity Forum with mass organizations. This clash also occurred on 24 February.

This incident is related to a land dispute case. The problem started in July 2020. At that time, the residents of Gang Buntu II were forcibly evicted by PT Pertamina Persero. Residents were forced to move out of the 4.8 hectare land, which has been inhabited by 2,000 people since 20 years ago. However, PT Pertamina claimed the land belonged to them.

For residents, the evictions flawed legal procedures. Residents do not accept being evicted from the land that is still in dispute. They know very well that evictions cannot be carried out before a court decision is made. In addition, residents also reported a lot of intimidation and terror they experienced.