Fachrizal Baladraf, Maidina Rahmawati and Erasmus AT Napitupulu – Imagine the horror: as students were praying, the concrete structure above them suddenly collapsed. The main building of the Al Khoziny Islamic Boarding School (pesantren) in Sidoarjo, East Java, crumbled on 29 September 2025, trapping hundreds inside. After ten days of search and rescue operations, authorities confirmed 67 fatalities, mostly students, and 104 injuries. The tragedy stands as Indonesia's deadliest non-natural disaster in 2025.
As the dust settles, there are questions about the tragic incident that need answering. How could such a huge construction failure occur? What lessons can be learned to prevent similar incidents in the future? And what are the implications of this disaster for religious education administrators and the general public?
A preventable tragedy
It is still too early to determine the exact root cause of this incident, and forensic investigations are currently being carried out by the Ministry of Public Works and the East Java Regional Police. However, some things have become clear:
First, the failure occurred during concreting work on a newly added fourth floor. Reports indicate that some students were involved as construction workers, either as a form of punishment or service to the boarding school.
Second, during the concreting process, the building remained fully operational, as evidenced by the mass prayer attended by hundreds of students on the ground floor when the collapse occurred.
Third, the collapsed structure was originally a two-storey building that had been gradually modified with additional levels and rooms. However, these upgrades were not accompanied by column or foundation upgrades, which significantly reduced the structure's ability to handle loads.
In Indonesia, the design of concrete structures is governed by SNI 2847:2019, which adopts principles from the American Concrete Institute standards. Given that Indonesia lies in a seismically active region, the requirements for concrete design are generally more stringent than those in non-seismic countries.
Accordingly, buildings must be designed so that in the event of a major earthquake or disturbance, failures occur gradually and are visible, rather than suddenly and catastrophically. In engineering terms, this controlled-failure property is known as ductility – the ability of a structure to deform significantly before collapse, providing a valuable window of time for evacuation before total collapse.
Achieving ductility depends largely on steel reinforcement detailing and structure connection design. After the collapse, visual evidence suggested that this type of reinforcement detailing had not been applied in the building's construction. Because the building was expanded in stages, its connections may have developed weak spots if extensions were not properly designed.
Who should be held accountable?
In principle, Indonesia already enforces strict building design and construction standards, especially in major metropolitan areas. However, enforcement remains uneven across the country.
Commercial buildings must undergo several stages of design and construction review before obtaining the building permit (Persetujuan Bangunan Gedung, PBG) required to start construction. They must also obtain a Certificate of Function Worthiness (Sertifikat Layak Fungsi, SLF) when construction is complete.
The problem is that non-commercial buildings like those managed by religious organisations often receive less regulatory oversight.
In fact, the Sidoarjo failure adds to the growing list of construction accidents involving religious buildings in Indonesia. Only a few weeks earlier, a less-publicised collapse occurred during a religious gathering in Bogor, West Java, on 7 September 2025, resulting in five deaths and about eighty injuries. Then, on 2 October 2025, a viral video circulated online showing the upper section of a minaret of the Sukoharjo Great Mosque in Central Java being blown off by strong winds.
The next critical question is: who should be held responsible? From a legal perspective, at least two groups must be investigated: those who constructed the building and those who supervised the construction. In this case, the pesantren seems to bear full responsibility, as no third-party designer and contractor was involved during construction.
A more complex debate arises regarding supervision and building feasibility. The key question is: how effective has government oversight been in ensuring construction safety and compliance?
The legal basis for building construction and supervision practices and the required permits (PBG and SLF) is set out in Law 28 of 2002 on Buildings and Government Regulation 16 of 2021. Local governments are responsible for monitoring building feasibility from the licensing stage through post-construction.
On paper, this supervision system should be sufficient to prevent recurring incidents of building collapse across Indonesia. That is why if the government's failure to conduct proper supervision can be proven, victims may demand accountability – at least to ensure that similar tragedies do not happen again.
What can victims and their families do?
While several parents of the victims believe neither the school nor the authorities were to blame for the incident, there are legal avenues available for victims who want compensation.
In civil law, victims and their families can file a lawsuit against the pesantren for damages arising from injuries or deaths. They would argue the pesantren has committed an unlawful act (PBH) under Articles 1365-1367 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) and, specifically for buildings, Article 1369.
Under criminal law, negligence resulting in death is covered by several provisions. Article 359 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) covers negligence causing death, while Article 360 addresses negligence leading to serious injury. In addition, Articles 46(3) and 47 of Law 28 of 2002 on Buildings deal with technical violations that cause a building to become unfit for use and result in the loss of life
Unfortunately, unlike victims of sexual violence, gross human rights violations, or terrorism, victims in a case like this cannot receive compensation automatically from the state. The only party that can realistically be held responsible for compensation is the pesantren but that first requires that it be prosecuted. During the prosecution, the victims can then request compensation by joining a civil claim to a criminal case under Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
Another option is to apply for restitution under Article 7A of Law 31 of 2014 on Witness and Victim Protection, which grants victims or their heirs the right to compensation in cases of death caused by negligence. This mechanism was previously used in the Kanjuruhan Stadium tragedy in Malang. However, this mechanism only works if the Victim and Witness Agency (LPSK) is involved in the case.
Under Supreme Court Regulation 2 of 2019 on Guidelines for Administrative Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Acts by Government Officials, if victims want to sue the local government for negligence in supervision, they must file a lawsuit with the State Administrative Court (PTUN).
However, the compensation the Administrative Court can award is very limited. According to Government Regulation No. 43 of 1991, it ranges between IDR 250,000 and IDR 5 million (SUD $250-500), depending on the circumstances. Moreover, such lawsuits must be filed within 90 days of the alleged administrative wrongdoing, which is difficult to prove in cases of poor supervision like this.
Systemic reform is long overdue
This case highlights ongoing weaknesses in Indonesia's legal system, especially in terms of victim recovery.
First, the law still places the burden on victims to actively pursue compensation. Second, restitution and compensation depend heavily on the offender's willingness and ability to pay. This can be a major limitation given Indonesia's weak system for enforcing court decisions. Third, holding government agencies accountable through the Administrative Court remains difficult and offers only minimal remedies.
Indonesia's legal framework should therefore be reformed to better respond to cases involving loss of life due to negligence. Like victims of sexual violence, terrorism, or gross human rights abuses, victims of fatal negligence should be eligible for direct state compensation, without having to rely on lengthy and complex legal processes. The government should also reform its compensation system to be more victim-oriented while improving the enforcement of civil and criminal compensation orders.
According to data from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Indonesia has more than 42,000 pesantren, and just 50 of them have permits to establish buildings. Reform in construction oversight is therefore urgently needed. Inspection mechanisms should cover not only projects with valid and ongoing permits but also unlicensed constructions.
Finally, the involvement of certified engineers must be made mandatory at every stage, while the capacity of local governments and community participation should be strengthened to ensure compliance and safety across all types of buildings, including buildings used for religious purposes.