This policy was formalized through the 1916 Film Ordinance (Film Ordonnantie 1916), published in the Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië (State Gazette) No. 276. The ordinance laid the groundwork for a strict censorship regime. It not only set the rules for monitoring cinema screenings but also legally mandated the creation of KPF as the colonial government’s watchdog over public film content.

KPF’s job wasn’t just to watch and cut. The commission had the authority to remove any part of a film deemed inappropriate, especially scenes considered harmful to public morality, disruptive to social order, or contrary to colonial political objectives. Interestingly, there was no clear definition of what constituted "public morality" or "general order" ; those decisions were left entirely to the discretion of local authorities.

To enforce compliance, harsh penalties were imposed on anyone who dared screen films without prior approval from KPF. The system gave sweeping powers to the colonial state, placing the cultural and ideological content of cinema tightly under its control.

The formation of the Film Review Commission in 1916 marked the very beginning of film censorship in the Indonesian archipelago. Although the Japanese occupation and the post-independence era brought different approaches and motivations to censorship, the Dutch-era system laid the foundation introducing the idea that moving images could, and should, be governed by the state.

Dibentuknya Komisi Penilaian Film pada masa kolonial Belanda tahun 1916 menjadi titik awal pelaksanaan sensor film bumi Nusantara. Kegiatan itu berlanjut pada masa Jepang dengan konsep, strategi dan kebijakan yang berbeda dengan masa kolonial Belanda. Penerapan kebijakan sensor film berlanjut setelah Indonesia menjadi bangsa merdeka.

The aim was clear: win the hearts and minds of the Indonesian people. To achieve this, the Japanese banned all American and British films symbols of Western influence and replaced them with content that aligned with the empire’s military and ideological goals. Only films that supported Japanese wartime objectives, celebrated imperial power, or promoted traditional Japanese values were allowed to reach the public.

Film censorship under Japanese rule was strictly enforced by the military. The Dutch-era Film Review Commission (KPF) was rendered irrelevant, and full authority fell to the Sendenbu. Under their direction, films were expected to depict the strength of the Japanese military or uphold cultural and moral standards reflective of Japanese ideals.

To further control the narrative, the Japanese established their own film production company. In September 1942, Jawa Eigha Kosha was founded, later renamed Nippon Eiga Sha in April 1943. This studio was tasked with producing propaganda films tailored specifically for Indonesian audiences films that emphasized obedience, sacrifice, and devotion to the Japanese cause.

In this colonial chapter, cinema served as more than a tool of entertainment; it was a powerful weapon in the battle for public perception. Every reel was a message. Every screening, a calculated move. And behind it all was a regime determined to project power and rewrite reality through the lens of film.

Amid this revolutionary atmosphere, film was viewed not merely as a form of entertainment, but as a powerful tool for the national struggle. This belief was strongly held by the country’s founding leaders. On September 10, 1946, the Indonesian government officially established the Film Review Commission a significant move that underscored the strategic role of cinema. The commission was composed of prominent national figures, including Ali Sastroamidjojo, Ki Hadjar Dewantara, Mr. Soebagio, RM Soetarto, Usmar Ismail, Soemardjo, Anjar Asmara, Djajeng Asmara, and Rooseno.

Just one month later, Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono DC announced the formation of a broader Censorship Body. Unlike the film-specific commission, this agency was tasked with reviewing a wide range of content: publications, broadcasts, printed materials, posters, placards, slogans, photographs, clichés, stage plays, letters, and more. This was not an attempt to suppress public freedom—but rather, a proactive effort to prevent misunderstandings, unrest, and provocation during a fragile time. Every decision was guided by nationalist principles and the overarching goal of supporting the Republic's establishment.

While the Yogyakarta-style Censorship Body focused broadly on maintaining public order and national security, the Film Review Commission was established with a more specific mission: to safeguard the political potential of film and ensure that cinema remained aligned with the people’s values and the ideals of the independence movement.

In this transitional era, censorship was not merely an act of control—it was a strategic instrument of unity, protection, and revolution.

At the heart of this transition was the establishment of the Film Supervisory Committee on March 21, 1950. This body was formed to replace the outdated Dutch-era Film Ordonnantie. Originally operating under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the committee consisted of 32 members appointed by the ministry, representing a broad cross-section of society—educators, religious leaders, military personnel, police officers, and others. Their mandate was clear: to oversee and monitor all films, both domestic and foreign.

However, this responsibility shifted significantly with the enactment of Law No. 23 of 1951, issued on November 28. The new legislation transferred film oversight from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry of Education, Teaching, and Culture, reflecting a shift in governmental perspective: film was now viewed more as a tool for public education than mere administrative control.

This ideological pivot was further reinforced through Ministerial Decree No. 40439, issued by Minister Prof. Bahder Djohan on November 3, 1952. The decree expanded upon the 1940 Film Ordonnantie, adding new restrictions aimed at protecting societal values. The updated regulations prohibited film content that promoted war, undermined morality or military ethics, violated principles of honor, encouraged subversion against the state, or glorified the use of violence—particularly the repeated and excessive use of weapons—as a means to achieve both noble and harmful goals.

This era marked a key turning point: from colonial-style censorship to a more values-driven approach centered on education, integrity, and the moral development of the nation.

This transformation became formalized with Minister of Information Decree No. 58/B/Kep/Menpen/1973, issued on July 27, 1973. The decree officially recognized the Film Censorship Board as the government’s sole authority responsible for reviewing all films intended for public screening within Indonesia or for export abroad. In carrying out its mandate, BSF operated under the ideological framework of Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, MPRS Decree No. XXVII/1966, and specific guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information.

The board consisted of 45 members, including a chairman, vice chairman, and secretary, each appointed for a two year term with the possibility of reappointment. Members were selected from various government institutions and professional sectors to reflect Indonesia’s national character including representatives from the film industry itself.

By this period, film classification had already evolved into a more structured system, with clear age categories: All Ages, 13 and up, and 17 and up. These ratings served as guidance for both filmmakers and audiences, reinforcing the idea that content should be tailored to different maturity levels.

When reviewing films, BSF did not rely on rigid or mechanical criteria. Instead, it evaluated content through a balanced lens considering thematic elements, religious and cultural sensitivities, social and political context, and public order. The Board emphasized a mature and reasoned approach, rooted in the social realities of the time, rather than enforcing blanket censorship.

The legal framework supporting LSF’s establishment and operations became increasingly comprehensive. These included Law No. 8 of 1992 on Film, Government Regulation No. 7 of 1994 on LSF, several ministerial decrees on the Institute’s organizational structure and procedures, Presidential Decree No. 179 of 1995 regarding LSF membership, and a 2004 decree by the Minister of Culture and Tourism formalizing the organization and duties of the LSF Secretariat.

Under these regulations, LSF’s mission was clearly defined. According to Article 4, Chapter II of Government Regulation No. 7/1994, the Institute was tasked with protecting the public from the potential negative impacts of films and film advertisements that did not align with the nation’s film policy and cultural values. It was also responsible for preserving Indonesia’s moral and cultural integrity through cinema, and for monitoring public response and appreciation of films released across the country.

A major turning point came in 2008, when the Constitutional Court under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshidiqie, S.H. declared that the existing Film Law, Law No. 8 of 1992, was outdated and no longer reflected the spirit of the times. The decision led to the birth of a new legal framework: Law No. 33 of 2009 on Film, followed by Government Regulation No. 18 of 2014 on LSF, and the Minister of Education and Culture Regulation No. 14 of 2019. These policies now form the legal backbone of LSF’s operations in the digital era.

In line with these reforms, LSF adopted a new, dialogue-based approach to censorship. Rather than simply cutting scenes, the Institute now provides review notes and revision suggestions, returning the creative responsibility to film producers. This method fosters cooperation and respects artistic integrity while still upholding the nation’s cultural values.

Censorship today goes beyond just assigning age ratings. It also involves assessing a film’s alignment with moral standards and cultural values rooted in Indonesia’s diverse heritage. In this sense, LSF plays a dual role: it not only acts as a regulator but also as a mediator ensuring that audiences are protected and that creators are supported.