132

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

LEGALITY: JURNAL ILMIAH HUKUM
Journal homepage: http://www.ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/legality

Taking Perspective Between Indonesia and
Germany: The Establishment of Quo Vadis
House of Worship
Mohammad Hamidi Masykur1, Tanto Lailam2, Ferio Ivan Mulyono3*
1,3 Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang, 65144, Indonesia
2 Universität zu Köln, Köln, 50923, Germany
* Corresponding author: ferioivanm@gmail.com

Abstract

Article
Keywords:
House
of
Worship;
Licensing; Establishment;
Right to Worship; Religions

This paper discusses about licensing the establishment of houses of worship. In
practice, the licensing arrangements for worship in both countries have significant
differences. Indonesia has a bureaucratic approach that is formal, administrative,
and social and community-based. Indonesia specifically regulates the requirements
for the establishment of houses of worship in PBM 9 & 8/2006.
Administrative, technical, and special requirements are required to obtain
Article History
licenses. However, PBM 9&8/2006 has a loophole for the rejection of houses
Received: Oct 02, 2024;
of worship, thus potentially inhibiting freedom of worship. On the other hand,
Reviewed: Nov 04, 2024;
Germany takes an ecological, spatial, and architectural approach to licensing
Accepted: Jan 21, 2025;
houses of worship. Germany adheres to BauGB as a regulation related to building
Published: Jan 27, 2025.
construction by paying attention to FNP and B-Plan as guidelines. This
normative juridical research uses comparative, conceptual, and statutory
approaches. The main finding of this research is that the two countries have
different approaches in considering permits for the establishment of houses of
worship. It is found that the difference between the two lies in the aspects of
regulation, characteristics, and the approach to resolving disputes over the
establishment of houses of worship.
Copyright ©2025 by Author(s); This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All writings
published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent
the views of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions.

INTRODUCTION
Religious freedom in Indonesia is guaranteed in Article 28E paragraph (1) of
the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which reads, "Every person is free to
embrace a religion and worship according to his religion". This characterises Indonesia as a state
of the Almighty God, but it does not mean that Indonesia is religious or even secular

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

133

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

(Listari, 2023). For this reason, the state must ensure the protection of the rights of
religious communities (Arifin, R., et al., 2021). The relationship between the state and
religion is like two sides of a coin; both are different but inseparable (Shaleh & Wisnaeni,
2019). There needs to be a balance to maintain plurality harmony in Indonesia. This is
necessary to ensure that the existing plurality serves as the instrument to advance national
development.
In 2023, the Ministry of Religious Affairs released the Religious Harmony Index
(Kerukunan Umat Beragama/KUB) in Indonesia, reaching 76.02 points (Kementerian
Agama, 2024), a significant increase from 73.09 points in 2022. This indicates a positive
trend. This trend is inversely proportional to the research conducted by PEW Research
with the theme Annual Study of Restrictions on Religion in the period 2007 to 2018. PEW
Research researched 198 countries in the world using 2 (two) indices, namely the Social
Hostility Index (SHI), which serves to measure the friction that occurs in society related to
social diversity and the Government Restriction Index (GRI), which serves to measure the
restrictions given by the government in religious freedom. Higher points in the indices
indicate greater obstacles in religion. Indonesia has high restrictions, reaching a score
of 7.7 on the GRI and a score of 6.7 on the SHI (Chudzaifah et al., 2024). These scores
are markedly different from the average GRI global score at the international level (2.9)
and SHI (2) (Chudzaifah et al., 2024). Therefore, active participation from the
government and the community is required to support the achievement of higher
points in KUB and lower GRI and SHI scores.
Religious conflicts are often inevitable, which can disrupt the stability and
security of the country (Safi’ et al., 2024). Furthermore, it can also jeopardise the KUB
that has been built with great difficulty. The report of the Research and Development
Agency, as well as the Ministry of Religious Affairs, according to the implementation
of religion, found that there are at least 7 (seven) factors that can trigger conflict
between religious communities: 1. the establishment of houses of worship, 2. religious
broadcasting, 3. assistance from and/or to foreign countries, 4. Interfaith marriage, 5.
celebration of religious holidays, 6. blasphemy, and 7. deviant practices against religion
or belief (Ali, 2009). One of the causes of religious conflict is the establishment of
houses of worship, especially for religious minorities in a region. It often sparks an
issue that causes national unrest. The Political Research Center of the Institute of
Sciences, cited by Setara Institute in 2018, conducted a survey and found that 52%
disagreed with the construction of houses of worship of other religions in their
neighbourhood (Suryawati & Syaputri, 2022). This fact is also supported by other
research conducted by the Setara Institute regarding the Freedom of Religion or Belief
Report, which states a significant disturbance to houses of worship. The findings
explained that in 2022, there were at least 50 cases of disruption to houses of worship,
involving 21 churches, 16 mosques, four temples, four prayer rooms, and one house of

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

134

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

worship for indigenous faiths (Hasan, 2023). This situation may hamper efforts to fulfil
human rights, as stated in Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the
Republic of Indonesia, "The state guarantees the independence of each resident to embrace their
respective religions and to worship according to their religion and belief." The rejection of the
establishment of houses of worship for other religions certainly discredits and weakens
a religious adherence to exercise the rights guaranteed in the constitution (Yasin, 2021).
Whereas houses of worship are important facilities and infrastructure for religious
people, houses of worship become places to fulfil spiritual needs that cannot be delayed
and put aside (Nifutu, 2023).
To surmount these issues, the government, through the Ministry of Religious
Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, released a Joint Regulation of the Minister of
Religious Affairs and the Minister of Home Affairs Number 8 and 9 concerning
Guidelines for the Implementation of Duties of Regional Heads/Deputy Regional
Heads in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony, Empowerment of Religious
Harmony Forums and the Establishment of Houses of Worship (hereinafter referred
to as Peraturan Bersama Menteri/PBM 9 and 8/2006). In its substance, PBM 9 and
8/2006 regulate the licensing of the establishment of houses of worship in Indonesia.
PBM 9 and 8/2006 are made to provide arrangements related to the establishment of
houses of worship to ensure legal certainty and avoid conflict. However, the issuance of
PBM 9 and 8/2006 triggered many conflicts related to the establishment of houses of
worship, particularly in Article 14 of PBM 9 and 8/2006, which regulates the
administrative and technical requirements for establishing houses of worship. This
statutory article explains that in addition to these two requirements, the establishment
of houses of worship must also fulfil special requirements, such as: 1. at least 90 (ninety)
Identity Cards (KTP) of the users of houses of worship authorised by local officials
according to the level of territorial boundaries, 2. support from the local community
represented by at least 60 (sixty) people authorised by the head of the village or local
village head, 3. written recommendations from the regency or city religious department
office, and 4. recommendations from the Religious Harmony Forum (Forum Kerukunan
Umat Beragama/FKUB).
The special requirements are intended to prevent discriminatory practices
(Purbolaksono, 2023). PBM 9 and 8/2006 functions as regeling, which refers to
government action under public law that is general and abstract, such as ministerial
regulations (Al-Fatih & Muluk, 2023). Freedom of religion and worship is one part of the
freedom of external rights (forum externum) that the state can restrict. However, as
stipulated in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of
Indonesia and Article 70 of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, restrictions
on human rights must use regulations in the form of laws (Nurahmani & Sihombing,
2022). This is also reinforced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which Indonesia ratified in 2005. Article 18 paragraph (3) ICCPR specifies that

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

135

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

freedom to practice and determine religion can only be limited by 1. clear legal
regulations, 2. the existence of fundamental reasons, 3. protecting security and order, 4.
public health and morals, and 5. the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. This
shows that the establishment of houses of worship should be regulated by a law, not
regulations under it.
In practice, many deviations arise from the multi-interpretive nature of the
articles in PBM 9 and 8/2006. For example, Article 13 of PBM 9 and 8/2006 explains
that if the requirement of real needs for community services is not met, then
consideration of the composition of the population within the boundaries of the subdistrict, district/city, or province is used. However, the regulation does not clearly
define how the composition of the population is assessed in qualitative terms. Similarly,
the term "local" in some articles is often ambiguous. This ambiguity has led to
instances where the establishment of houses of worship has been obstructed by
individuals or groups from other regions (sub-districts, regencies/cities, other provinces)
(Purbolaksono, 2023). This issue arises from the lack of a clear and explicit definition of
"local" in the regulation.
The National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi
Manusia/Komnas HAM) in 2020 made a study on PBM 9 and 8/2006. The study included
a comparison of countries related to the establishment of houses of worship, such as the
United States, India, Italy, Austria, Spain, and Khazakstan (Agus Suntoro et al., 2020).
Some comparisons of the regulations regarding the establishment of houses of worship
can serve as references for the government to improve the regulations in PBM 9 and
8/2006. Germany is one of the countries other than those studied by Komnas HAM that
can be used as a comparison. Research from Komnas HAM and other studies have not
explained the comparison of the establishment of houses of worship between
Indonesia and Germany. Research on houses of worship in Germany has explored
the establishment of houses of worship for minority groups, such as Hindus (Brigitte
Luchesi, 2020) and Muslims (Rafid Sugandi et al., 2024). However, the research
primarily adopts an empirical approach rather than a normative juridical perspective.
In contrast, this research focuses more on comparing the normative juridical aspects
of house of worship regulations in Germany, building continuity with earlier studies
on the effectiveness of such establishments in the country.
Article 4 of the German constitution (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
guarantees that freedom of religion is inviolable. The implementation is in the
establishment of houses of worship that have rules with environmental and spatial
approaches. In addition, the mediation approach used is public consultation but does
not require the support of the local community. Therefore, this can be a comparison
to the problem of the establishments in Indonesia related to the licensing aspect, the
approach of socialisation and/or mediation to the community, and the requirements

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

136

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

that are too administrative.
METHOD
This paper employs a normative-juridical method examining the law as rules
relevant to normative juridical research or written legal research (Ansari & Negara,
2023;Soekanto & Mamudji, 2010). This approach involves analysing related theories,
legal concepts, principles, and laws and regulations relevant to the issues discussed.
Normative juridical research uses secondary data, such as regulations, literature, and
legal documents, supported by statutory (Marzuki, 2014) and comparative approaches
(Suganda, 2022).
This study also uses primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Primary
legal materials include regulations, while secondary materials are drawn from reading
materials such as books, journals, and theses. Tertiary materials include legal
dictionaries, which serve as official references for scientific writing. This paper also uses
comparative analysis by comparing the existing regulations in Indonesia and Germany
related to the permit to establish houses of worship. The study identifies differences and
similarities between the two countries by analysing these regulations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Licensing Arrangements for Houses of Worship Establishment with Legal
Certainty in Indonesia and Germany
Licensing from the government to establish houses of worship in Indonesia and
Germany takes several stages. Indonesia and Germany have different mechanisms,
requirements, and approaches for granting licenses related to houses of worship. This can
happen based on the two countries' different cultures and social structures.
Indonesia specifically regulates the establishment of houses of worship in PBM
9 and 8/2006. Despite many controversies, PBM 9 and 8/2006 are still valid as the
regulations governing the establishment of worship houses. As the only regulation that
explicitly explains matters related to houses of worship, PBM 9 and 8/2006 have
weaknesses in law enforcement (Sulistiyo et al., 2023). A. Yewangoe argues that the
implications of the regulations contained in PBM 9 and 8/2006 are not legal products
that come from regulation-making bodies such as the DPR or executives such as the
President, so the final responsibility lies with each Minister (Janah & Baroroh, 2021).
Substantially, PBM 9 and 8/2006 do not limit the rights related to freedom of religion
as stated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (Sulistiyo et al., 2023).
This administratively has the value of procedural justice in establishing religious
harmony. Although it has this value, loopholes remain.
However, PBM 9 and 8/2006 inhibit the establishment of houses of worship,
making it possible to degrade the right to worship. In their implementation, PBM 9 and
8/2006 have problems that intersect with religious harmony. Articles 13 and 14 in
PBM 9 and 8/2006 often become obstacles to establishing houses of worship in

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

137

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

Indonesia. The restriction is not prohibited, especially regarding public order. The
problem lies in the form of regulations, the wording of the article, and the requirements
that tend to be administrative. This causes different interpretations, and paradigm shifts
in understanding the diversity of a religious community in the region. While PBM 9 and
8/2006 specifically regulate the establishment of houses of worship, they are not the sole
regulations governing this matter (Jellin & Suwondo, 2019). Article 14, paragraph (1) of
PBM 9 and 8/2006 outlines the need to fulfil administrative and building requirements
for establishing a house of worship in Indonesia, and paragraph (2) introduces special
requirements.
This framework indicates that the overarching regulation related to Building
Permit (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan/IMB) is Law No. 28 of 2002 concerning Buildings
(hereinafter referred to as Building Law). However, PBM 9 and 8/2006 do not provide
detailed explanations regarding administrative and technical requirements, requiring
reference to Government Regulation No. 36/2005 concerning the Implementation
Regulation of Law No. 28/2002 concerning Buildings (hereinafter referred to as GR
36/2005). Article 8 of PP 36/2005 specifies that administrative requirements include: 1.
land rights status and/or utilisation permit, 2. building ownership, and 3. Building
construction permit. On the other hand, the technical requirements of the building
include 1. building layout and 2. building reliability requirements. This indicates that
PBM 9 and 8/2006 do not operate in isolation but are interconnected with other
regulations. PBM 9 and 8/2006 have contributed in terms of regulating special
conditions that become restrictions, regulating the authority of local governments in
maintaining religious harmony and empowering FKUB.
The enactment of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022
concerning Job Creation (Peraturan Pengganti Undang-undang Cipta Kerja/Perpu Cipta Kerja), which
has been altered to a law based on Law No. 6 of 2003 concerning the Stipulation of
Government Regulations in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into
Law (hereinafter referred to as the Cipta Kerja/Ciptaker Law), introduced significant
changes to the Building Law. The most notable change is the shift in the nomenclature from
Building Permit (IMB) to Building Approval (Perizinan Bangunan Gedung/PBG) (Sanjaya,
2024).
The fundamental difference between IMB and PBG lies in the licensing flow
(Maggara & Frinaldi, 2023). In IMB, the technical building must be attached when
applying for a permit, while the PBG must meet predetermined technical standards and
does not require the building owner to apply for a permit before starting construction
(Rohalia & Meilani, 2023). The influence of PBG on houses of worship can also be seen
in the form of sanctions applied. When the function of the building changes and the owner
fails to apply for a new PBG permit, administrative sanctions may be imposed. This
situation is common among houses of worship that lack formal permits and operate in

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

138

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

buildings originally approved for other functions. Although PBM 9 and 8/2006 include
provisions for temporary permits for building use, these permits lack strong legal
legitimacy. Furthermore, under Article 19, paragraph (2) of PBM 9 and 8/2006,
temporary permits are valid for only two years, which increases the likelihood of
rejection.
This challenge is exacerbated by requirements such as recommendations from
local village heads (lurah) and written approval from FKUB, both of which are prone
to rejection due to pressure from majority groups in certain areas opposing the
establishment of houses of worship (Agus Suntoro et al., 2020). Changes to the
Building Law and Job Creation Law have led to changes in the subordinate regulations,
where Government Regulation (PP) 36/2005 changed into PP No. 16/2021 concerning
the Subordinate Regulations of Law Number 28/2002 concerning Buildings
(hereinafter referred to as PP 16/2021) (Pratama & Lewiandy, 2024). A notable
difference in PP 16/2021, compared to PBM 9 and 8/2006, lies in the omission of
explicit administrative and technical requirements.
For this reason, the National Public Service Information System (Sistem Informasi
Pelayanan Publik Nasional/SIPPN outline the requirements for obtaining Building
Approval (Perizinan Bangunan Gedung/PBG). These include first, land data covering land
documents, land boundary drawings, building drawings, and land contour drawings
and/or descriptions; second, general data including ID card (Kartu Tanda
Penduduk/KTP), land utilisation agreement letter, Flight Operation (Safety Provisions
(Kawasan Keselamatan Operasi Penerbangan/KKOP), Land Use Designation Permit (Surat
Izin Penunjukkan Penggunaan Tanah/SIPPT), Religious Harmony Letter (Surat Kerukunan
Umat Beragama/SKUB), Architectural Design Concept, situation drawing, spatial plan
drawing, and general and special specifications; third, technical provisions including
detailed drawings of building structures, technical specifications and general
specifications, and technical calculations of detailed lightning rod plans. While SIPPN does
not explain the special requirements in PBM 9 and 8/2006, this does not render them
irrelevant. These requirements still apply, particularly regarding SKUB, which mandates a
minimum requirement of 90 KTPs from religious adherents who will establish a house
of worship and 60 statements of support from the local community.
To guarantee the freedom of religion in Germany, Article 4 paragraph (1) of
the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland states, "Freedom of religion, freedom of
conscience, and freedom to recognize religious and ideological beliefs shall not be infringed" (Fischer
& Morhman, 2021). This provision applies to the establishment of houses of worship
in Germany. In general, the difference in permit requirements related to the
establishment of houses of worship in Germany is that it does not require special
conditions. Germany focuses on the building's environmental, spatial, and
architectural aspects. This matter is regulated under the Baugesetzbuch (BauGB), which
governs planning and development. Unlike in Indonesia, Germany does not have a

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

139

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

special arrangement for houses of worship and no specific rules for licensing houses
of worship apply. The characteristics of Germany as a federal state also provide space
for states to take part in the regulation of buildings (Popelier, 2021), as outlined in the
Landesbauordnung (LBO), which regulates state buildings.
Germany, which focuses on environmental, spatial, and architectural aspects,
sets strict standards for building construction. Building construction permits, including
houses of worship, must follow Germany's regional spatial plan. Two levels of regional
spatial planning in Germany apply: Flächennutzungsplan (FNP) and Bebauungsplan (BPlan). Section 5 (1) BauGB, stating:
The land use plan (FNP) for the entire municipal area shall describe the type of land use
resulting from the urban development plan in accordance with the estimated needs of the
municipality. Areas and other representations may be excluded from the land use plan if this
does not affect the basic features to be presented in accordance with sentence 1, and shall the
municipality implement such representations at a later date, the reasons shall be explained in
the justification.
Meanwhile, the B-Plan is a detailed specification of the FNP, specifically
described in Article 9 paragraph (1), with at least 26 (twenty-six) conditions that must
be considered. The B-Plan also provides protection for buildings that must be
protected and located far from entertainment venues on moral grounds. These
buildings include churches, schools, and daycare centres. In Indonesia, the Regional
Spatial Plan (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah/RTRW) equates to the FNP, and the Detailed
Spatial Plan (Rencana Detail Tata Ruang/RDTR) equates to the B-Plan. However,
regarding development, especially houses of worship, RTRW and RDTR do not
occupy the main role in determining the licensing and establishment of houses of
worship (Arnowo, 2023). Germany places the FNP and B-Plan in the main role to
make decisions because they are related to environmental, spatial, and architectural
aspects. Spatial planning is an important aspect in sustainable development, one of
which is the fulfilment of the spiritual needs of religious people.
Confirmation of the applicability of FNP and B-Plan is contained in Articles 29 and
30 of BauGB. Exceptions to the B-Plan are explained in Article 31 of BauGB, which states
that for the welfare of the community, such as the fulfilment of social needs, an
application can be submitted as long as it does not conflict with the public interest in the
B-Plan (environment, traffic, etc.). This shows that even though the licensing is quite strict
regarding FNP and B-Plan compliance, the German government makes allowances for
social aspects. The role of the government is crucial in granting licenses based on FNP
and B-Plan considerations.
Several stages must be passed to apply for a house of worship license in
Germany. The first stage requires consultation with the local planning agency (Bauamt) to
ensure that the construction plan is in accordance with the FNP and B-Plan. Bauamt, in

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

140

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

this case, will provide consideration and document requirements needed for licensing
because the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Germany is applied
conditionally based on the place of development. While the category is based on the type
of project, which requires no EIA for houses of worship in Indonesia, it depends on
the situation of the place of establishment of houses of worship in Germany. The
documents required in licensing are delegated to each state, as outlined in the State
Building Regulations (Bauordnung). In general, the required documents include a Building
Plan (Baupläne), Environmental Impact Assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung/
UVP), Traffic Impact Analysis (Verkehrsflussanalys), and Technical Standard from
technical standardisation institution (Deutsches Institut für Normung/DIN). The completed
documents are then submitted to Bauamt for evaluation. Under separate regulations, the
public can submit comments previously announced on the development (Article 3
BauGB). In case of objections, the German government facilitates a public consultation.
The public consultation is not decisive, but a provision in BauGB related to the FNP
and B-Plan is. Objections must also address concerns about environmental,
architectural and spatial impacts.
Characteristics of House of Worship Regulations in Indonesia and Germany
The regulatory characteristics of the establishment of houses of worship in
Indonesia and Germany reflect differences in approaches to religious freedom,
administrative regulation, and social interaction. PBM 9 and 8/2006, as a special
regulation for the establishment of houses of worship, requires houses of worship to
fulfil administrative and technical requirements, along with support from the
surrounding community. This can result in resistance from the local community,
especially for religious minorities, who often face difficulties in obtaining permits. Some
studies show that the implementation of religious tolerance is still at the government
level but has not been cultivated at the grassroots (Sulistiyo et al., 2023). PBM 9 and
8/2006 in the level of implementation, often faces challenges, including discrimination
against religious minorities and interfaith conflicts that can hinder the establishment of
houses of worship. The characteristics of regulation in Indonesia are based on the
fulfilment of administrative-technical requirements that are quite strict but often formal,
socially based, and double licensing through FKUB and PBG.
Germany agrees that building permits are important to development, realised
through accurate, transparent, and efficient local regulations (Fauth et al., 2024).
Support from the surrounding community is not an absolute requirement for the
establishment of houses of worship in Germany. The government encourages tolerance,
and projects such as the House of One in Berlin demonstrate efforts to create spaces for
different religions to worship together. Although there is no requirement for community
support, the construction of houses of worship must still comply with local regulations
relating to safety and strict building technicalities submitted to Bauamt.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

141

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

The regulation of the establishment of houses of worship in Indonesia and
Germany shows significant differences in the approach to licensing the establishment
of houses of worship. Indonesia has strict regulations with the requirement of
community support, which often causes conflict, especially for religious minorities in
one region. On the other hand, with FNP and B-Plan, Germany has a high standard
of compliance with spatial regulations, considering ecological, spatial, and layout
factors. Through its legislation, the German government ensures that no particular
faith, even if it is the majority in society, will dominate and later be tolerated by
adherents of other faiths. This is in line with the opinion of Thomas Schmitz, a DAAD
Lecturer, saying in a Science Talk entitled "Freedom of Religion and Tolerance in a
Pluralistic Society - the Example of Germany" that Germany is not a Christian country
but a pluralist one (Schmitz, 2021). However, this freedom is not merely left unchecked
but is given limits to create order and justice (Dahoklory & Wardhani, 2020). So, in
this case, the government as an institution is expected to be neutral and not associated
with any belief.
Moreover, based on the author's direct observation and experience living in
Germany, the permit to establish a house of worship in Germany is under the authority
of the Federal State, not the central Government, considering that Germany is a
Federal State, not a Unitary State like Indonesia). Therefore, the permit to establish a
house of worship must start from the city. Several cases in Germany involving disputes
over mosque construction stem from resistance in certain areas to their presence. This
issue is like the challenges faced in Indonesia. Since Germany places a high value on
protecting individual rights, the presence of a mosque is often perceived as a potential
source of disturbances that might infringe upon those rights.
Approaches to Resolving Houses of Worship in Indonesia and Germany
The approaches to addressing issues surrounding the establishment of houses
of worship in Indonesia and Germany differ significantly due to their distinct legal,
social, and cultural contexts. In Indonesia, such disputes are often addressed through
deliberation, with litigation serving as a last resort if dialogue fails to resolve the matter
(Razak et al., 2022). While this approach emphasises the importance of dialogue, it is
often ineffective and can prolong conflicts (Sulistiyo et al., 2023). Despite clear
regulations, implementation on the ground often faces challenges, such as community
resistance, often experienced by religious minorities. This shows that despite the legal
framework, social realities can potentially hinder the right to freedom of worship.
The author takes the example of the Methodist Church Conflict in Jambi City,
Indonesia. This conflict arose based on factors related to the permit to establish a
house of worship of the Methodist Church located in Besar Village, Alam Barajo
Subdistrict, Jambi City (Firdaus et al., 2023). This began with complaints from residents
who objected to the establishment of a house of prayer (Methodist Church). Residents

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

142

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

felt the existence of the church to cause commotion because illegal mass events
appeared, their origin was unclear, and they violated the safety and comfort of local
residents. This is also reinforced by the absence of a permit for the establishment of
the Methodist Church, which has not met the requirements for getting a permit to build
a house of worship from 90 church members and a total of 60 local residents (Firdaus
et al., 2023).
The government has attempted to resolve the conflict over the establishment of
the Methodist Church by reviewing the licensing documents for houses of worship. The
Jambi City Government and the Religious Harmony Forum (FKUB) also conducted
fact checks in the field to examine the violations that the Methodist Church committed
(Firdaus et al., 2023). Supervision and security efforts were carried out to anticipate and
reduce violence between the two conflicting parties. Then, mediation and negotiation
efforts were made to settle the issue by being open to the views of the neutral third party.
To maintain the security and tranquillity of Jambi City, the government imposed a seal
on the property on September 27, 2018 (Badan Litbang dan Diklat Kementerian
Agama RI, 2018). Another rejection related to houses of worship was the establishment
of a mosque in Andai, Manokwari, West Papua in 2015 (Mustafa, 2019). The rejection was
based on most of the community complaining that the mosque had not obtained an IMB
permit (now PBG) and asked for respect for the Papuan civilisation entity, which is
predominantly Christian. Finally, in 2016, the mosque could only be rebuilt while waiting
for permission when the tensions in the area subsided (Setiawan, 2015).
In resolving conflicts related to the establishment of houses of worship,
Indonesia mostly goes through deliberation (Agus Suntoro et al., 2020). Article 21,
paragraph (1) of PBM 9 and 8/2006 stipulates that disputes are resolved by deliberation
by the local community. However, this approach is often ineffective and can potentially
prolong conflict. If the deliberation does not result in common ground, Article 21
paragraph (2) of PBM 9 and 8/2006 calls for the district head/mayor to intervene,
assisted by the district/municipal religious department and on the recommendation of
the FKUB. As a last resort, unresolved disputes will be brought to the local court. The
head of the region has an important position and role in determining conflict resolution
(Suryawati & Syaputri, 2022). This refers to PBM 9 and 8/2006, in which the Regional
Head has the role of issuing IMB (now PBG) and assisting in mediation of problem
resolution. This central role sometimes has obstacles due to the lack of legal knowledge
of the Regional Head in settling disputes over the establishment of houses of worship.
In Germany, there have been several instances of resistance from citizens
regarding the construction of houses of worship, especially in the case of mosque
construction. This rejection is caused by many factors, such as concerns about noise,
traffic impacts, changes in neighbourhood character, or even more sensitive issues, such
as fear of immigration and integration. One of the most highlighted cases is the
construction of the Cologne Central Mosque, one of Europe's largest mosques (Aljazeera,

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

143

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

n.d.). The construction of this mosque faced resistance and protests from some citizens
and certain political groups. They argued that a mosque with a tall minaret would change
the face of the city and feared the symbolism it would bring. Despite the protests, the
mosque was eventually built and inaugurated in 2018. Something similar happened in the
small town of Penzberg, Bavaria. There was initial resistance to the construction of a
mosque initiated by the local Muslim community. However, after an intense dialogue
between the local government, the Muslim community, and the residents, the mosque
finally received support and was allowed to be built (Ben Knight, 2016). Germany's
approach to public consultation is more formal and extensive. This is outlined in Article
15 of the BauGB, which regulates the procedural refusal of buildings, including houses of
worship, determined based on environmental, spatial, and architectural reasons. Later, the
objections will be facilitated in a public consultation discussion forum. Bauamt can accept or
reject the objection with consideration of conformity with the FNP and B-Plan. In
addition, litigation can be pursued under Articles 68-73 of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz
(VwVfG) or the Administrative Procedure Law.
CONCLUSION
Indonesia and Germany, in their state constitution, guarantee freedom of
religion and freedom to worship. However, the two countries differ in regulating the
establishment of houses of worship in ensuring legal certainty. Indonesia specifically
regulates the establishment of houses of worship in PBM 9 & 8/2006. The regulation
substantially contains requirements that must be met for houses of worship to obtain a
license, such as administrative requirements, technical requirements, and special
requirements. These special requirements include the support from at least 60 people
from the local community, a minimum of 90 ID cards from the congregation,
recommendations from FKUB, and recommendations from the district/city religious
department. This often hinders the establishment of houses of worship for minorities in
a region. The existence of pressure from the majority religious group in a region allows
pressure not to issue licenses for houses of worship. The characteristics of licensing the
establishment of houses of worship in Indonesia are bureaucracy-formality, administrative,
and social and community-based. The settlement of disputes over houses of worship in
Indonesia has a deliberative approach. However, it is not fully effective and has the
potential for religious people to worship. It is different from Germany, which does not
have special requirements. Germany has an ecological, architectural, and spatial-based
approach. This is strictly regulated in BauGB in terms of FNP and B-Plan. Disputes
over the establishment of houses of worship will be considered based on the suitability of
the FNP, B-Plan, and possible ecological impacts. Such disputes will be facilitated in a
formal public consultation. The authority may grant a license if there is no fault in
violating the FNP and B-Plan.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

144

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

In this case, Indonesia can consider taking an approach to the establishment
of houses of worship that is based on an ecological, architectural, and spatial-based
approach. In addition, it also applies a more comprehensive deliberation method in
resolving disputes over houses of worship. On the other hand, to strengthen good
relations between countries, bilateral cooperation can be carried out, and Germany can
take views related to Muslim communities from Indonesia, a country with the largest
Muslim population in the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University,
through an individual grant scheme.
REFERENCES
Agus Suntoro, Mardhika Agestyaning Hermanto, Nadia Farikhati, Okta Rina Fitri,
Ronny Rizky, & Ronny Josua Limbong. (2020). Kajian Komnas HAM RI atas
PBM No. 9 dan 8 tahun 2006 terkait Pendirian Rumah Ibadah. Komnas HAM RI.
Al-Fatih, S., & Muluk, M. R. K. (2023). Understanding Beschikking, Regeling, and
Beleidsregel in Indonesian Legal System. Audito Comparative Law Journal, 4(2),
87–95. https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i2.25417
Ali, M. (2009). Pemetaan Kerukunan Kehidupan Beragama di berbagai Daerah di Indonesia.
Departemen Agama RI, Badan Litbang dan Diklat, Puslitbang Kehidupan
Keagamaan.
Aljazeera. (n.d.). Germany’s Largest Mosque to Broadcast Call to Prayer on Fridays.
Aljazeera.
https://aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/11/germanys-largestmosque-to-broadcast-call-to-prayer-on-fridays
Arifin, R., Helmi, H., Nte, N. D., Waspiah, W., & Latifiani, D. (2021). The adversity
on establishing places of worship: has religious freedom failed in Indonesia?.
Legality:
Jurnal
Ilmiah
Hukum,
29(1),
93–113.
https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v29i1.15317
Arnowo, H. (2023). Mengkaji Potensi Kesesuaian Kegiatan Pemanfaatan Ruang
(KKPR) Untuk Pengendalian Pemanfaatan Ruang dan Tertib Pertanahan.
Jurnal Widya Bhumi, 3(2), 99–112.
Badan Litbang dan Diklat Kementerian Agama RI. (2018). Turun ke Jambi, Fakta
Menjelaskan
Penyegelan
Tiga
Gereja
Tepat
Menghindari
Konflik.
https://balitbangdiklat.kemenag.go.id/berita/turun-ke-jambi-faktamenjelaskan-penyegelan-tiga-gereja-tepat-menghindari-konflik
Ben Knight. (2016, March 30). Bavarian AfD Wants to Shut Down Mosques. DW.
https://www.dw.com/en/bavarian-afd-wants-to-shut-down-mosques/a19149600

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

145

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

Brigitte Luchesi. (2020). Handbook of Hinduism in Europe (Vol. 2). Brill.
Chudzaifah, I., Sirait, S., Arif, M., & Hikmah, A. N. (2024). Membangun Kerukunan
Antarumat Beragama: Peran Strategis PAI dalam Meningkatkan Dialog,
Toleransi dan Keharmonisan di Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 10(1), 1–12.
Dahoklory, M. V., & Wardhani, L. T. A. L. (2020). Rekonstruksi Nilai-nilai Pancasila
dalam Undang-undang. Sasi, 26(3), 297–309.
Fauth, J., Bloch, T., Noardo, F., Nicholas, N., Kaiser, S. B., Gade, P. N., & Tekavec,
J. (2024). Taxonomy for building permit system—Organizing knowledge for
building permit digitalization. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.102312
Firdaus, R., Nurbaiti, Halim, A., & Mubarak, Z. (2023). Penyelesaian Konflik Pendirian
Rumah Ibadah: Studi Kasus Konflik Gereja Methodist Kota Jambi. Jurnal
Ilmiah Ilmu Ushuluddin, 22(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.18592/jiiu.v22i1.9416
Fischer, M., & Morhman, K. (2021). Multicultural integration in Germany: Race,
religion, and the Mesut Özil Controversy. Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication,
14(3),
202–220.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2020.1782453
Hasan, H. (2023, February 1). Kondisi Kebebasan Beragama/Berkeyakinan (KBB) 2022.
https://www.askara.co/read/2023/02/01/33725/kondisi-kebebasanberagam-berkeyakinan-(kkb)-2022
Janah, T. N., & Baroroh, U. E. (2021). Pluralism in the Fiqh Sosial’s Perspective. Santri:
Jurnal
Pesantren
Dan
Fiqh
Sosial,
2(1),
17–34.
https://doi.org/10.35878/santri.v2i1.277
Jellin, & Suwondo, S. (2019). Aspek Hukum Pendirian Tempat Ibadah Gereja
Dikaitkan Dengan Undang-Undang No. 28 Tahun 2002 Tentang Bangunan
Gedung (Studi Dinas Perizinan Kota Cirebon). Hukum Responsif, 10(2).
10.33603/responsif.v10i2.5062
Kementerian Agama. (2024, July 18). Indeks Kerukunan 2025-2029 Ditargetkan Capai 78
Poin, Ini Langkah Kemenag. https://kemenag.go.id/nasional/indeks-kerukunan2025-2029-ditargetkan-capai-78-poin-ini-langkah-kemenag-V5Rxb
Listari, I. D. (2023). Pancasila dan Agama. Jurnal Etika Demokrasii, 8(3), 334–350.
Maggara, T. S., & Frinaldi, A. (2023). Dampak Perubahan Kebijakan Izin Mendirikan
Bangunan (IMB) Menjadi Persetujuan Bangunan Gedung (PBG) di Kabupaten
Padang Pariaman. AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam Dan Humaniora, 2(4), 895–900.
10.58578/ahkam.v2i4.2419
Marzuki, P. M. (2014). Teori dan Metodologi Hukum (Edisi Revisi) (Revision). Kencana.
Mustafa, M. S. (2019). Merawat Kerukunan Umat Beragama Berbasis Kearifan Lokal
di
Manokwari
Papua
Barat.
Al
Qalam,
25(2),
271–284.
https://doi.org/10.31969/alq.v25i2.755

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

146

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

Nifutu, E. M. (2023). Analisis Wilayah Sebaran Umat Gereja Katedral Beatae Mariae
Virginis Kota Bogor terhadap Kapasitas Daya Tampung Menggunakan Sistem
Informasi Geografis. Jurnal Online Mahasiswa (JOM) Bidang Teknik Geodesi, 1(1).
Nurahmani, A., & Sihombing, P. (2022). Kajian Kebijakan Pembatasan Pengalihan
Hak Atas Tanah di Ibu Kota Nusantara. Majalah Hukum Nasional, 52(1), 27–
46. https://doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v52i1.181
Popelier, P. (2021). Dynamic Federalism: A New Theory for Cohesion and Regional Autonomy.
Routledge.
Pratama, G., & Lewiandy, L. (2024). Analisis Yuridis Perbandingan Izin Mendirikan
Bangunan dan Persetujuan Bangunan Gedung dari Perspektif Undang-Undang
Cipta Kerja. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora, Dan Politik, 4(3), 363–370.
https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v4i3.1900
Purbolaksono, A. (2023). Indonesia 2023: Evaluasi Peraturan Bersama Menteri Agama dan
Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 9 dan 8 Tahun 2006 Guna Menjaga Kerukunan Umat
Beragama. The Indonesian Institute Center For Public Policy Research.
Rafid Sugandi, Faras Puji Azizah, Budi Darmawan, & Diah Arvionita. (2024). Sejarah
Peradaban Islam: Menguak Keberadaan Minoritas Muslim Jerman. Toleransi:
Media Ilmiah Komunikasi Umat Beragama, 16(1), 56–70.
Razak, F., Dungga, W. A., & Mandjo, J. T. (2022). Settlement of Land Use Rights
Disputes of PT Lebuni Plantations and Shareholders through Non-Litigation
Channels. Damhil Law Journal, 2(2), 96–111.
Rohalia, R. D., & Meilani, N. L. (2023). Implementasi Kebijakan Persetujuan
Bangunan Gedung (PBG) di Kota Bukittinggi. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 7(1),
4518–4525. https://jptam.org/index.php/jptam/article/view/5949
Sanjaya, D. (2024). Kolaborasi Dalam Penerapan Persetujuan Bangunan Gedung
(PBG) Menuju Pembangunan Berkelanjutan Dan Menciptakan Iklim Investasi
Yang Lebih Baik. Argopuro: Administration, Government, and Public Relation Journal,
1(2),
9–17.
https://journal.myrepublikcorp.com/index.php/argopuro/article/view/69
Schmitz, T. (2021, June 4). Freedom of Religion and Tolerence in a Pluralistic Society—The
Example of Germany. Science Talk, Yogyakarta. https://www.thomas-schmitzyogyakarta.id/
Setiawan, N. (2015, Oktober). Belum Kantongi IMB, Pembangunan Masjid di
Manokwari
Ditolak
Warga.
Kompas.
https://regional.kompas.com/read/2015/10/29/15475291/Belum.Kantongi
.IMB.Pembangunan.Masjid.di.Manokwari.Ditolak.Warga
Shaleh, A. I., & Wisnaeni, F. (2019). Hubungan Agama dan Negara Menurut Pancasila
dan Undang-undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Jurnal
Pembangunan
Hukum
Indonesia,
1(2),
237–249.
https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v1i2.237-249

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Mohammad Hamidi Masykur, et. al.

147

LJIH 33 (1) March-2025, 132-147

Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2010). Penulisan Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat.
Rajawali Pers.
Suganda, R. (2022). Metode Pendekatan Yuridis Dalam Memahami Sistem
Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah. Jurnal Ekonomi Islam, 8(3), 2859–2866.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29040/jiei.v8i3.6485
Sulistiyo, B., Mashdurohatun, A., & Wahyuningsih, S. E. (2023). Legal Reconstruction
of the Requirement for the Establishment of the House of Worship Based on
Justice Values. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, 6(1), 27–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2023.v06i01.005
Suryawati, N., & Syaputri, M. D. (2022). Intoleransi dalam Pembangunan Rumah
Ibadah berdasarkan Hak Konsititusional Warga Negara. Jurnal Pembangunan
Hukum Indonesia, 4(3), 433–466. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v4i3.433-446
Yasin, N. (2021). Implementasi kebijakan pemenuhan hak beragama penyandang
disabilitas oleh negara perspektif maqashid syariah. De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan
Syari'ah, 13(2), 170-183. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v13i2.14462

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600