Ruben Onsu Asserts Right to Meet Child, Claims Sarwendah Complicates Conditions

The custody dispute between Ruben Onsu and Sarwendah has resurfaced. Ruben's side believes there is an attempt to change the provisions that have been agreed upon in Act 39 regarding the schedule and conditions for meeting with the child. At the South Jakarta District Court, Wednesday (19/08/2026), Ruben's attorney, Minola Sebayang, emphasized that his client only wants to execute the contents of the notarial deed as it is.

"I already said that the failure is due to a lack of understanding. Yes, one of the examples is, we continue to adhere to Act 39, which clearly, straightforwardly, and firmly states that Ruben indeed has the right to meet with the children for 2 to 3 days each week without conditions. Yes," said Minola Sebayang.

1. Hold Firmly to Act 39

Ruben Onsu wearing a shirt © KapanLagi.com/Fikri Alfi Rosyadi

Minola stated that Act 39 serves as the main reference for his side in every meeting. The provisions within it are considered clear, starting from the frequency to the duration of Ruben Onsu's time with the child without any additional prerequisites. He reiterated this during the mediation agenda at the South Jakarta District Court.

To strengthen their legal position, Ruben's side brought a physical copy of Act 39 and submitted it to the mediator judge. The document was read in the mediation room so that all parties have a common reference regarding the content of the previous agreement.

"And earlier the panel of judges also asked, is there anyone who brought Act 39? Fortunately, we brought it, we showed it, and the judge read it. So the judge said, ‘Oh, that’s right, it means here without conditions.’ Yes," Minola explained.

2. Sarwendah's Side Pushes for Additional Conditions

Ruben Onsu has short hair © KapanLagi.com/Fikri Alfi Rosyadi

On the other hand, Minola stated that Sarwendah's party still wants certain conditions for the meeting, citing health reasons and other regulations. According to him, this argument only emerged later and was never discussed during the drafting of the deed.

"Meanwhile, the other party always wants conditions, with various arguments. I said, we haven't talked about the main issue yet," he said.

In the regulatory debate, Minola emphasized that he is ready to refer to the relevant legal umbrella from both sides. "For example, if you want to talk about the law, you bring the Health Law, I bring the Human Rights Law," he added.

3. Validity of the Deed and Mediator's Response

Minola emphasized that as long as there are no official changes to the previous agreement, Deed 39 remains valid and binding for both parties. The term improvement he mentioned includes renvoi, corrections, and addendums that are ratified according to procedure.

He also mentioned the mediator's statement affirming the validity of Deed 39 until there is a valid update. His party rejects the notion of double standards and reaffirms their position to adhere to the contents of the existing document.

"So earlier the mediator also said, ‘Yes, that's right, as long as there is no renvoi, as long as there are no corrections and addendums, what applies is Deed 39.’ Meanwhile, they always want to say there are conditions, Bang Minola is double standard. Well, we are not double standard," concluded Minola.

(kpl/phi)