SAMBAS, The Kabar News—A Rp655 million (US$39,000) customary settlement arising from a confrontation at the Aruk border post in West Kalimantan has prompted calls for greater transparency over its legal basis, calculation and administration.

Sambas legal practitioner Lipi said on Saturday, Nov. 7, that he respected Dayak customary law as a system built on justice, consultation and reconciliation. However, he warned that individuals must not use customary institutions to intimidate others or obtain money without a clear and accountable basis.

“If the sanction was indeed imposed under customary law, show which customary provision was violated, who had the authority to impose it, how the amount was calculated, and to whom the money was handed over,” Lipi said.

The controversy followed an altercation at the Aruk Cross-Border Post (PLBN Aruk) on Nov. 2. Police said Customs and Excise officers were examining the belongings of four Indonesian citizens planning to travel to Malaysia. Then a disagreement developed over the inspection.

The travelers cancelled their journey, and about 100 people later arrived at the border compound. The group took five Customs officers to Bengkayang for mediation, although Sambas Police Chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Sanny Handityo rejected reports that the group had held them hostage.

Officials, community representatives and the disputing parties held mediation at the Bengkayang regent’s office on Nov. 3. The talks resulted in a written settlement between a customs civil servant and a resident named Michael.

The agreement set a total payment of Rp655 million. It allocated Rp155 million for customary sanctions and Rp500 million for what the document described as humanitarian costs. The customary component included ceremonial materials, food and implementation expenses, according to a published account of the agreement.

The document reportedly states that both parties signed it without coercion. Police also described the mediation as peaceful and said all five Customs officers returned safely after the agreement.

Despite this, Lipi said the parties should disclose the provision supporting the Rp500 million humanitarian payment. He also called for clarification about the customary body’s territorial authority. This was because the incident occurred in Sambas while the mediation took place in Bengkayang.

“Customary law inherited from our ancestors to create peace must not be misused by individuals as a tool to pressure others and seek personal gain,” he said.

Lipi did not accuse a named individual or institution of committing a crime. Instead, he said law enforcement should investigate if credible evidence later showed that anyone had used threats or coercion to obtain payment unlawfully.

As of Sunday, authorities had not announced any criminal finding. The public must therefore consider the settlement document’s claim that both parties acted voluntarily alongside the calls for further scrutiny.

Article 18B(2) of Indonesia’s Constitution recognizes customary-law communities and their traditional rights as long as they remain active and comply with societal development and the principles of the republic.

The Constitution also guarantees fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law through Article 28D(1), according to the House of Representatives’ constitutional text.

Lipi said the public should not interpret questions about a particular settlement as an attack on Dayak communities. He argued that transparency would instead safeguard the standing of customary law against allegations of misuse.

“We must respect customary law, but that respect must not eliminate the principles of justice, legal certainty and the protection of every citizen’s rights,” he said.

The dispute also temporarily disrupted activity at the Indonesia–Malaysia border. The Sambas administration has since pushed for services to resume because the crossing supports local mobility and economic activity, according to an official district government statement.

The signatories and customary authorities could publicly explain how they determined the payment. It could also prevent an individual dispute from damaging relations among border communities, customary institutions and government personnel.

Read also: Our sponsored offers