Polemik Antara Bem Ui Dan Warga Sipil Dalam Aksi Demonstrasi 8 Tuntutan Pada Bulan Agustus 2026: Kajian Sila Ke-5 Pancasila

Demonstrations are a democratic right guaranteed by the constitution, yet their implementation frequently intersects with public interests, as witnessed during the protest organized by the Student Executive Board of Universitas Indonesia (BEM UI) themed #MerebutKemerdekaan on August 18, 2026, at the Bundaran HI area, Jakarta. The selection of this central urban location with exceptionally high public mobility sparked a polemic due to its direct impact on disrupting the economic activities and mobility of civilians, particularly those whose livelihoods heavily depend on the daily activities in that specific area. This study aims to comprehensively examine how the freedom to express students' political aspirations can harmoniously coexist with the vital interests of the affected civilians, utilizing the framework of social justice values derived from the fifth precept of Pancasila. The method employed in this research is a qualitative approach through a comprehensive document analysis strategy. Primary data sources were gathered from official publications on the BEM UI Instagram account, along with various responses and comments from netizens, while secondary sources include academic literature and relevant laws and regulations. The data were qualitatively analyzed through the systematic stages of data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions. The findings indicate that although the BEM UI demonstration is legally valid as a manifestation of democratic participation, the utilization of a high-activity public space such as Bundaran HI inevitably creates a significant conflict of interest. The constitutional right of students to protest government policies directly collides with the rights of civilians to smooth mobility and access to a decent livelihood. The implications of this study emphasize that social justice within the framework of the fifth precept of Pancasila demands proportional consideration and accommodation for both parties without sacrificing one for the other. Therefore, resolving the polemic over the use of public spaces requires balanced management and evaluation so that freedom of expression can be effectively channeled without neglecting the socioeconomic welfare and public order of the general society.