TANGERANG – A family in Tangerang, on the western fringe of Jakarta, has filed a police report after being told that a body believed to be their missing father was not a DNA match. The case has reignited public concern in Indonesia over how authorities identify human remains and communicate with families, especially in a system that is still consolidating standards for forensic work and missing-persons investigations.

Image Illustration. Photo by Shane on Unsplash

A Missing Father, a Body Found, and a Shocking DNA Result

According to local accounts, the Tangerang family had reported the disappearance of their father weeks earlier. When police later discovered an unidentified male body in the region, they contacted the relatives, who recognized several similarities in clothing and physical build. On that basis, the family says they were initially informed that the body was likely the missing man and began preparing themselves emotionally and religiously for burial.

However, the case took an abrupt turn once forensic tests were carried out. Police sent biological samples for a DNA comparison between the body and close relatives. When the results came back, they showed that the genetic profile of the remains did not match the family members, meaning the body was not their father. This kind of parent–child comparison is a standard forensic practice worldwide, with modern DNA techniques capable of reaching reliability levels above 99.9 percent in establishing close biological relationships, as outlined by the U.S. National Institute of Justice and similar forensic authorities.

From Grief to Complaint: Why the Family Went to the Police

The family’s decision to formally report the matter was prompted not only by the non-identical DNA result but also by the way information was conveyed. Relatives claim they were led to believe—before laboratory confirmation—that their father had died, a conclusion they argue should not have been suggested so early in the process.

Under Indonesian law, the police are responsible for both criminal investigations and the handling of unidentified bodies, working through forensic units such as the Police Hospital (RS Polri) in Jakarta. In large disasters, like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2018 Lion Air JT610 crash, Indonesia relied heavily on DNA profiling to identify thousands of victims, an approach supported by international disaster victim identification (DVI) protocols promoted by organizations such as Interpol. Those experiences helped expand forensic capacity, but they did not fully resolve the everyday challenges of missing-persons cases at the local level.

Forensics Under Scrutiny in Indonesia

The Tangerang dispute unfolds at a time when forensic investigations are under intense public scrutiny in Indonesia. A separate high‑profile case, involving allegations about the paternity of a child linked to former West Java governor Ridwan Kamil, recently prompted the National Police’s forensic division to publicly explain its DNA results and methodology. In that case, authorities said the test showed the child’s genetic profile was non‑identical to Kamil’s, affirming that he was not the biological father, as reported by national news agencies and summarized by outlets such as Kompas.

Public debate around that scandal led Indonesian forensic experts to reiterate that accredited DNA laboratories follow strict chain‑of‑custody procedures, including barcoding samples, using control profiles, and subjecting results to peer review. As a forensic specialist interviewed by Detik explained, manipulating a properly conducted DNA test would require coordinated tampering at multiple stages, making it highly unlikely in routine cases.

How DNA Identification Works in Missing-Persons Cases

In missing-persons cases like the one in Tangerang, investigators usually rely on three main pillars of identification: fingerprints, dental records, and DNA. When bodies are decomposed or burned, fingerprints and facial features may no longer be usable, making DNA the most reliable option. According to the World Health Organization’s guidance on identification of human remains, DNA profiling has become the global gold standard, especially where dental or fingerprint records do not exist or are not easily accessible.

Indonesia has made significant investments in this field. Following a series of mass‑casualty events and transportation disasters, the country expanded the forensic capabilities of the National Police (Polri) and RS Polri. After the Lion Air JT610 crash in 2018, for instance, authorities said they relied on DNA to identify more than 125 of the 189 victims, according to reports compiled by Reuters and other international outlets. That operation highlighted both the potential and the logistical complexity of large‑scale DNA identification.

Indonesia’s Growing Missing-Persons Challenge

The Tangerang case also reflects a wider, often under‑reported issue: Indonesia’s growing number of missing‑persons reports. While precise nationwide figures are difficult to obtain, the Indonesian National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) has documented hundreds of cases annually that involve women and girls disappearing in the context of domestic violence, trafficking, or forced marriage. Civil society organizations say the real number is likely higher, as many families—particularly in rural areas—do not file formal reports or lack access to legal assistance.

On the law‑enforcement side, the National Police’s own statistics show that Indonesia handled more than 300,000 criminal cases in 2023, including homicides, assaults, and other violent crimes in which victims sometimes remain unidentified for long periods, according to the 2023 annual crime report from Polri’s Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim). In that context, forensic laboratories can quickly become overstretched, leading to delays in DNA analysis that prolong uncertainty for families like the one in Tangerang.

Communication Gaps and the Human Cost of Uncertainty

Experts stress that even when the science is robust, poor communication can erode public trust. A 2021 study on disaster victim identification in Indonesia, published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction found that families valued clear, regular updates about identification efforts as much as the technical accuracy of the process. When updates were vague or inconsistent, relatives were more likely to suspect mishandling or even foul play, compounding their grief with anger and confusion.

Psychologists say this dynamic is not unique to Indonesia. Research on ambiguous loss—a term coined by family therapist Pauline Boss to describe situations where the fate of a loved one is unknown—shows that unresolved disappearances can lead to long‑term trauma, depression, and complicated grief. A review in the journal Clinical Psychology Review notes that families who receive unclear or conflicting information from authorities often struggle more to reach emotional closure compared with those who receive timely, transparent communication.

Calls for Clearer Protocols and Better Support

Human‑rights advocates and legal aid groups have used cases like the one in Tangerang to renew calls for clearer national protocols on handling missing‑persons reports and unidentified bodies. They argue that police should avoid making conclusive statements about a person’s death until scientific confirmation is secured, and that families should be given written explanations of each investigative step, including the limitations of forensic tests.

Some of these reforms echo recommendations made by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which has urged states to adopt “guiding principles” that guarantee families timely information, access to legal remedies, and psychological support in disappearance cases. While Indonesia is not facing a widespread pattern of enforced disappearances on the scale seen in some conflict zones, the principles are increasingly cited by local NGOs as a benchmark for humane handling of missing persons.

Conclusion: A Case that Highlights Systemic Gaps

For the Tangerang family, the immediate question remains painfully simple: if the body is not their father, where is he? For Indonesian authorities, the case is a reminder that technical advances in DNA forensics must be matched by strong communication protocols, adequate lab capacity, and compassionate support for families left in limbo.

Until those gaps are addressed, similar conflicts are likely to surface whenever a missing person is tentatively linked to an unidentified body—and then, as in this case, definitively ruled out by a DNA test that says, with scientific precision, that the profiles are not identical.