Floresa.co – When Erasmus Frans Mandato, a resident of Rote Island, East Nusa Tenggara province was charged with a 3.5‑year prison sentence merely for posting criticism on Facebook, Indonesia once again revealed a deeply troubling face. His “crime” was questioning the closure of public access to Bo’a Beach by PT Bo’a Development, the company behind the luxury NIHI Rote hotel.
On March 30, 2026, when prosecutors read out their demand at the Rote Ndao District Court, violence erupted outside the courtroom. Protesters calling for Erasmus’s release—believing he was being criminalized—were attacked by another group reportedly aligned with corporate interests. Five people were injured. One protest coordinator was allegedly choked by a man wearing a prosecutor’s uniform and beaten by police with a loudspeaker.
This was not merely a court hearing. It was a demonstration of power, designed to intimidate anyone who dares to speak critically.
A Warning Beyond One Case
The violence directed at Erasmus’s supporters signals something far more serious than a local dispute. It reflects a broader threat to citizens who challenge problematic law enforcement practices—especially when their criticism touches powerful economic interests.
Prosecutors rely on Article 28(3) of Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law), which criminalizes the “distribution of false information causing public unrest.” This provision has long been criticized for its vague wording, making it a convenient tool to silence dissent in the digital space.
In Erasmus’s case, the irony is striking. Prosecutors repeatedly framed his Facebook post as “hoax content.” Yet, according to his legal counsel, all witnesses presented in earlier hearings confirmed that the road to Bo’a Beach was indeed closed. In other words, the core of Erasmus’s criticism was factual.
Roni Saputra, Director of Law Enforcement at Auriga Nusantara, has emphasized a basic legal principle: charges must follow evidence. If the prosecution cannot prove its claim, Erasmus must be acquitted.
Privatization of Public Space
This case cannot be separated from a larger pattern unfolding across East Nusa Tenggara, an island‑rich province where coastal spaces are increasingly privatized.
Rote is not alone. In Labuan Bajo—Indonesia’s flagship tourism destination—hotels have mushroomed along the coastline, often violating coastal setback regulations and steadily reducing public access to beaches. In Kupang, local authorities have gone further by effectively legalizing this appropriation through regulations that contradict national law.
Indonesia’s Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands requires a minimum coastal buffer zone of 100 meters from the highest tide line. Yet Kupang City’s Regional Spatial Planning Regulation shrinks this distance to just 30 meters, clearly favoring hotel and resort developers over public rights.
The prosecution of Erasmus sends a powerful—and dangerous—message: criticizing the marginalization of communities and the erosion of public space can land you in prison.
Law as a Tool of Silencing
Amnesty International has aptly categorized such practices as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—using legal instruments not to seek justice, but to silence critics.
The real danger lies in the chilling effect that follows. When one citizen is prosecuted under the ITE Law for questioning beach privatization, countless others receive a clear warning: remain silent, or face legal consequences.
This is how repression works most effectively today—not through mass violence, but through fear that spreads quietly and widely. And fear, once internalized, paralyzes democracy.
Who Does the Law Really Protect?
This leads to an unavoidable question: whom does the law truly serve?
Erasmus is criminally charged for criticizing the loss of public beach access. But who is prosecuting the corporations that have taken those beaches away? Where is the law when corporate actors seize coastal land meant for public use?
The Kupang case offers a stark answer. For those in power, even regulations can be dismantled or rewritten to legitimize the appropriation of public space. When law enforcement protects powerful interests while targeting critical citizens, the law ceases to function as an instrument of justice.
Instead, it becomes a mechanism to maintain power—supported by regulatory manipulation and the criminalization of resistance.
A Decision That Matters
Erasmus Frans Mandato bears these consequences because he chose not to be afraid. He understands that a society too afraid to speak is easily colonized—by the state, by corporations, or by both.
The judges of the Rote Ndao District Court now carry a heavy responsibility as this case moves forward.
Their decision will signal one of two paths: endorsing a logic of silencing, or affirming every citizen’s right to speak out in defense of the public interest.
What is at stake is not only Erasmus’s freedom—but the future of democratic space in Indonesia’s coastal communities.