BOGOR, JurnalPost.com — The decision of a prospective student at the Republic of Indonesia Defense University (Unhan) to withdraw after passing the central selection stage has drawn public attention. The decision was not based on academic issues, but rather on allegations of an unwritten rule requiring female students to remove their hijabs while undergoing education.
A prospective student for the Military Medicine Bachelor's program, identified by the initials AW, revealed her experience via social media. She claimed to have faced this issue while participating in the New Student Admissions (PMB) series for the Defense University for the 2026/2027 Academic Year.
According to her account, the issue began during an academic interview on June 7, 2026. At that time, she was asked about her willingness to remove her hijab if accepted as a cadet. The question became a serious consideration because it directly related to her religious beliefs.
AW subsequently decided to withdraw on June 24, 2026, as she entered the education contract signing stage. Her story emerged in the public sphere in August 2026, sparking a debate regarding the protection of religious freedom in educational environments under state institutions.
The Ministry of Defense (Kemhan) provided an explanation that there is no provision in the Rector of the Defense University Regulation Number 28 of 2025 that specifically prohibits the use of the hijab.
Adjustments to clothing during Basic Military Training (Latsarmil), according to the explanation, are related to considerations of safety, security, and the requirements for conducting military education.
Minister of Defense Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin is also said to have provided directives to ensure that the use of the hijab remains accommodated for female Muslim cadets.
Nevertheless, the issue leaves questions regarding the possibility of discrepancies between official regulations and the directives received by education participants in the field.
When Written Rules Differ from Field Practice
The important issue in this case does not stop at whether or not there is a hijab ban in official regulations. What needs to be observed is how an oral instruction can influence a prospective student's decision, especially if that instruction relates to rights protected by the constitution.
The Rector of the Defense University Regulation Number 28 of 2025 concerning Cadet Life Guidelines, as explained by the Ministry of Defense, does not contain an explicit ban on the use of the hijab. The regulation actually places the value of piety as part of the cadet's code of honor.
However, provisions regarding clothing adjustments based on activity needs, discipline, and safety have the potential to cause differences in interpretation if not accompanied by clear implementation guidelines.
In such conditions, education implementers may have different understandings regarding the limits of uniform adjustments, including when those provisions intersect with religious attributes.
Problems arise if that interpretation is then conveyed as an obligation that must be obeyed, but lacks a written basis that can be examined by prospective students.
This kind of situation can create uncertainty. On one hand, education participants are asked to follow institutional directives. On the other hand, they do not obtain clarity regarding the official provisions that form the basis of those directives.
If it is true that there was an instruction to remove the hijab without a clear policy foundation, the issue concerns not only educational discipline but also the principles of legal certainty and the protection of individual rights.
Religious Freedom Guaranteed by the Constitution
In the Indonesian legal system, religious freedom is a fundamental right that receives constitutional protection.
Article 28E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the freedom of every person to embrace a religion and worship according to their religion.
Meanwhile, Article 28E paragraph (2) provides protection for the freedom to hold beliefs and express attitudes based on conscience.
This guarantee is reinforced through Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which places the state as the party responsible for guaranteeing the independence of the population in practicing their religion and beliefs.
In the context of wearing a hijab, this protection is relevant because for Muslim women who believe it is a religious obligation, the hijab is not just a clothing accessory, but part of the practice of their faith.
This means that state institutional policies related to the use of religious attributes need to consider individual rights while also considering the objective needs of conducting education.
Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights also provides protection for religious freedom through Article 22.
In addition, Article 3 paragraph (3) emphasizes the principle of human rights protection without discrimination, while Article 1 point 3 provides a basis for assessing actions that have the potential to cause differential treatment based on religion.
Similar protection is found in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was ratified by Indonesia through Law Number 12 of 2005.
Although the freedom to hold beliefs cannot be reduced, the implementation or manifestation of beliefs in certain circumstances can be subject to restrictions that meet legal requirements. Such restrictions must have a legal basis, a legitimate purpose, and meet the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Thus, reasons of discipline or safety cannot automatically be used to justify every form of restriction on religious attributes.
Oral Instructions and the Issue of Legal Certainty
In state administrative law, the actions of public officials must observe the principle of legality and the general principles of good governance.
One important principle is legal certainty, as regulated in Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration.
This principle demands that administrative actions have a basis of authority that can be accounted for and are not carried out arbitrarily.
Oral instructions can indeed be used in the operational activities of an institution. However, if those instructions create new obligations that limit a person's rights, the basis of authority and its consistency with higher regulations must be explainable.
Especially in the student admission process, every requirement should be informed transparently before prospective participants make their choices.
Unclarity regarding provisions for hijab use can place prospective students in a difficult situation. They must choose between maintaining personal beliefs or continuing the educational opportunity they have fought for through the selection process.
In AW's case, this issue is the center of attention.
If the alleged oral instruction is proven, it is necessary to investigate who gave the directive, the policy basis used, and whether similar directives have ever been applied to other education participants.
Such an investigation is important so that the assessment of this event is not based solely on differing statements, but also on facts and decision-making mechanisms that can be accounted for.
Testing Reasons of Uniformity and Safety
Military education institutions have different characteristics from universities in general. Discipline, uniformity, physical readiness, and safety are important parts of their educational system.
However, those characteristics do not erase the institution's obligation to respect the constitutional rights of education participants.
In assessing restrictions on the use of religious attributes, the principle of proportionality becomes an important measure.
A restriction needs to have a clear purpose, be truly necessary to achieve that purpose, and not be carried out excessively.
For example, if the use of a certain type of clothing risks interfering with safety during physical training, the institution needs to explain that risk objectively.
Furthermore, it is necessary to consider whether that risk can be overcome through adjustments to the hijab design, clothing material, or safety equipment without having to prohibit its use entirely.
Such an approach allows the needs of safety and the protection of religious freedom to run side by side.
The Ministry of Defense's explanation regarding the possibility of using a hijab in certain activities also shows the importance of technical guidelines that distinguish the needs of each educational activity.
Without detailed guidelines, policies have the potential to be applied inconsistently and create uncertainty for participants.
The Need for Evaluation and Supervision
The debate regarding the alleged hijab ban at the Defense University has also received attention from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and several members of the House of Representatives (DPR).
The push to provide clarification and conduct evaluations shows that the issue has a broader dimension than just a difference in understanding of campus rules.
Nevertheless, public attention does not by itself prove that systematic discrimination has occurred. Such a conclusion still requires an examination of the facts, applicable provisions, and their implementation practices.
Evaluation can begin by ensuring that all provisions regarding cadet clothing are set out in written guidelines that are easily accessible, including by prospective students before participating in the selection.
Institutions also need to provide a complaint mechanism that allows participants to report directives or actions deemed inconsistent with official provisions.
The mechanism must provide protection to the reporter and ensure that every report is examined objectively.
In addition, independent evaluation can be considered to ensure that the implementation of internal regulations remains in line with human rights principles, without ignoring the needs of discipline and safety in military education.
Maintaining Balance between Discipline and Religious Rights
The case of the alleged hijab ban at the Defense University provides a lesson on the importance of alignment between written regulations and policy implementation in the field.
The fact that no explicit ban was found in internal regulations is important. However, that is not enough to ensure that all policy implementation has proceeded according to the principles of rights protection.
If there are oral instructions that differ from official provisions, the institution needs to provide an explanation and make improvements so that similar issues do not happen again.
Ultimately, the protection of religious freedom does not have to be pitted against military education discipline. Both can run together as long as every policy has a clear legal basis, is applied proportionally, and considers the needs of all education participants.
Transparency of rules, consistency of implementation, and effective supervision mechanisms are important steps to prevent the emergence of allegations of discrimination.
Because legal certainty is not just about the availability of written regulations, but also about how those rules are implemented fairly toward everyone.
Legal Basis
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, specifically Article 28E, Article 28J, and Article 29.
Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.
Law Number 12 of 2005 concerning the Ratification of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration.
Rector of the Republic of Indonesia Defense University Regulation Number 28 of 2025 concerning Cadet Life Guidelines, as referred to in the Ministry of Defense's clarification.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response