On the heels of a series of vicious acts, including the riot at the National Police Mobile Brigade headquarters in Depok and the suicide bombings in Surabaya, President Joko Widodo has taken firm action.
By
Hendardi
·5 minutes read
ANTARA FOTO/GALIH PRADIPTA
A suspect in the case of the Thamrin terrorist bomb attacks, Aman Abdurrahman alias Oman Rochman (center), after undergoing trial in South Jakarta District Court, Jakarta, Friday (18/5/2018). Aman Abdurrahman faces a death sentence as demanded by the prosecutors for his alleged involvement in terrorist attacks by bombing the Oikumene Church in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, in 2016, the attack on Jalan MH Thamrin, Jakarta, in 2016, and the bomb at Kampung Melayu Terminal in Jakarta in 2017, and two shooting incidents against policemen in Medan, North Sumatra; and Bima, East Nusa Tenggara, in 2017 resulting in many casualties.
On the heels of a series of vicious acts, including the riot at the National Police Mobile Brigade headquarters (Mako Brimob) in Depok (8/5/2018) and the suicide bombings in Surabaya (13/5), President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has taken firm action.
The action was taken in following numerous delays in the deliberation of the Terrorism Law revision, which has been ongoing at the House of Representatives since March 2016.
Strengthening the Terrorism law at the House instead of issuing a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) is the right move.
The idea proposed in the Terrorism Law revision is not the only effective mechanism in curbing terror acts. Consequently, every time a terrorist attack occurs, the public calls for the accelerated deliberation of the Terrorism Law revision. However, this is understandable, considering that Law No. 15/2003, which was previously Perppu No. 1/2002, is in fact inadequate in efforts to eradicate terrorism from the upstream to the downstream.
The focus of Law No. 15/2003 is acting upon terrorism after the fact. It does not provide a legal basis for acting upon potential terrorist threats. The National Police and other state security institutions have longed for a legal basis for anticipatory measures.
Broadening authorities
The Terrorism Law revision proposed the idea of preventive justice focused on strengthening the state’s authority, through anticipatory measures by law enforcement agencies. Preventive justice in general is defined as a system of actions the government takes in order to prevent certain crimes. This is achieved through setting up limitations which may potentially violate human rights.
It is this doctrine that justifies the police’s preventive actions in tackling terrorism, including the option of using live ammunition despite the criticism of many.
Early detection and prevention, or preemptive act, which was not regulated in Law No. 15/2003, becomes of the revision’s major focus. The government is aware that one of the weaknesses of a criminal justice system is that criminal punishment can only be implemented after the fact. Law enforcement agencies can only respond to criminal acts after the fact. Such a doctrine is clearly not entirely relevant in the context of terrorism.
One new approach often proposed in an enhanced criminal justice system. Several countries, including the UK and Australia, have adopted the preventive justice approach. One of its controversial elements is the pretrial detention, where law enforcement officers are given the right to detain an alleged terrorist who may commit violent crimes for a certain period of time while investigation is being done, without having to go through court.
With this pretrial detention authority, law enforcement officers are given the latitude to detain persons within certain period of time while doing in-depth investigation to unravel the terror networks the persons are allegedly related to. However, even if the mechanism is called pretrial detention, the persons declared as alleged terrorists remain eligible for legal aid and lawyer. Furthermore, the persons must not suffer from torture and are eligible for compensations if no evidence is found within certain period of time. Law enforcers’ work within this pretrial detention period is often strictly monitored by an independent commission specifically created for that purpose.
Another authority given to law enforcement agencies in preemptive justice is post-release monitoring on former terror convicts as part of the deradicalization program.
These former terror convicts are monitored and eligible to participate in a number of programs arranged by law enforcement agencies for a certain period of time. This is because of concerns that former terror convicts returning to the society may rejoin their old terror networks if unsupervised. Terrorism is clearly not a common crime and therefore common crime-fighting procedures may not be effective. This is why the approach used is enhanced criminal justice system.
With all these new authorities, the National Police and other law enforcement agencies can do more effective work. However, the preventive justice concept is also prone to deviations and human rights violations. In these new authorities as stipulated in the law revision, new challenges lie for the National Police. Unfortunately, the law revision has yet to regulate independent monitoring on terrorism eradication work. However, as long as these new National Police authorities exist within the framework of the rule of law, the monitoring mechanism on terror-tackling actions can still be done internally and externally through pretrial motions.
Upstream-downstream regulation
Apart from broadening the authorities of the National Police and other law enforcement agencies, the Terrorism Law revision also regulates terrorism from the upstream to the downstream. On the upstream of terrorism, intolerance as manifested in hate speeches will be a focus of attention by law enforcement agencies. It is proven that hate speech can serve as a medium to radicalize the public.
Without a strength basis of authority, it is difficult to act upon hate speeches, despite the existence of the Criminal Code and the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. Both laws are ineffective against terror networks.
On the downstream, the Terrorism Law regulates deradicalization program and the right restoration of victims of terrorism. Deradicalization programs carried out by the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) will have a stronger pattern and institutional support once the Terrorism Law is approved. The fulfillment of victims’ right will be inseparable from the state’s responsibility to achieve justice for victims.
Another issue that obstructs the approval of the Terrorism Law revision is the definition of terrorism and the Indonesian Military’s involvement in terrorism eradication. Upon coordination between ministries and political parties, however, it seems that the law revision can be approved soon. We hope that how terrorism is defined in the law will not limit terrorism eradication efforts and make finding evidence difficult.
Related to the military’s involvement in fighting terrorism, the involvement framework in law enforcement operations carried out by the National Police is the principle all relevant parties must adhere to. Without any limitation, terrorism eradication will deviate from the judicial process and this will lead to new violations.
