Architect's Liability in Alleged Malpractice on the Construction of the Majapahit Information Center at the Trowulan Site

Abstract

Architectural projects undertaken within cultural heritage sites require professional accountability that balances development objectives with the preservation of historical and archaeological resources. The controversy surrounding the construction of the Majapahit Information Center at the Trowulan Site raised questions regarding architects' legal and ethical responsibilities in cases of alleged professional malpractice. This study examined the legal and ethical accountability of the architect involved, focusing on professional obligations, decision-making authority, and evidence establishing a causal connection between architectural services and reported damage to archaeological heritage. A normative juridical research method was employed through a literature-based examination of legislation, professional codes of ethics, scholarly publications, and relevant documentary records. The legal materials were analyzed qualitatively using grammatical, systematic, and teleological methods of legal interpretation. The findings indicated that Baskoro Tedjo's documented involvement primarily concerned the preparation of an alternative architectural design within an existing government-established master plan. The reviewed evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that his design directly caused the reported archaeological damage or that all requisite elements of civil liability had been established. His reported request to suspend construction was also relevant to evaluating his professional conduct and the extent of his responsibility. The analysis further identified fragmented institutional responsibilities and inadequate coordination among stakeholders involved in project planning and implementation. The study concluded that the available evidence did not sufficiently establish individual professional negligence or civil liability on the part of the architect. Strengthening the allocation of professional responsibilities, integrating archaeological consultation into project planning, and establishing heritage-sensitive architectural guidelines were recommended to prevent similar disputes. The assessment also emphasized the importance of distinguishing legal provisions applicable at the time of the events from regulations enacted subsequently.