Certificate of Fitness to Function: For Whom?

When we look up the Certificate of Fitness for Function (SLF) online, the answers refer to two things. The first is the definition and rules, the second is about cases surrounding SLF. Unfortunately, for the latter, we find more cases and news with negative indications.

SLF is a certification from the DKI Government for buildings that have met the functional requirements. This must be owned by every building before it is used or occupied. However, the existence of this SLF is like in the middle of nowhere, whether or not it exists is only known when the building is in trouble.

In August 2016, for example, an apartment building caught fire, leaving dozens of residents injured and hospitalized. When the fire broke out, the fire extinguisher was reportedly not working, and the elevator was damaged. It was later discovered that the apartment building did not have SLF, and had even been sealed months earlier. But why is the building still operating?

This is a question mark, considering that SLF has an impact on the safety of residents, but it is precisely those who have the least information about the feasibility of their occupancy. Sadly, consumers who spend hundreds of millions for a residence are actually in the weakest position, becoming victims of a chain of confusing certifications.

A "rogue" developer?

Shortly after the incident, news broke about the government announcing a list of 'rogue' developers on the Jakarta Smart City portal. Reportedly, many buildings in Jakarta do not have SLFs but are still operating. Months since the news circulated, until now none of the pages on the portal have released the data.

What exactly is at the heart of the SLF problem? Why does this certification business seem to be a mystery to residents? Does the fault really only come from the developer?

Not many people know that without SLF, developers actually lose money. Some examples are;

• Cannot issue Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB) with consumers,
• Cannot open banking branches inside the building-remembering that SLF is required by OJK,
• It cannot establish a Flat Tenants Association (PPRS), and collect maintenance fees.

Thus, the absence of SLF became something that developers avoided. The question marks are getting bigger. If SLF is so important for developers, why is it said that many do not have it?

The answer consumers get when asking this is "in process". How long does the process take? Developers can't answer for sure, because administrative matters go back to the government.

Conflicting Rules

Research results from the Jakarta Property Institute show that to manage a Building Permit alone, there are at least 25 interrelated regulations, starting from the Law to the Governor's Regulation. Dozens of them are even known to contradict each other and there is a lack of clarity. If the rules for building a building are still problematic, it is not impossible for the same thing to happen to obtain SLF.

This is my concern about SLF. It is easy to label a building as 'naughty' or point to the developer as the culprit of the problem. But without an in-depth evaluation from the government to find out the root of the problem, it will be futile. The vicious circle will keep repeating itself; the building burns down, it is discovered that it does not have SLF, the SLF process is complicated.

Definite rules, compliant developers, and the running of a supervisory system and strict sanction mechanism are inseparable. Keep in mind the nature of SLF, which is to protect occupants/consumers. Clearly, what consumers want is for the SLF to function to provide security and comfort, not safety threats and uncertainty.

If SLF cannot provide benefits to consumers and is actually detrimental to developers, then who is it actually issued for?