| Abstrakt: |
The involvement of the Indonesian Army in law enforcement is often a problematic issue in the context of countries that implement a democratic system. It is considered that the army does not have to be involved in matters of internalsecurity but rather must focus on external threats, however, in the context of a democratic country, the real problem indeed does not lie with civilians or military, but rather with the accountability mechanism. History has proven that authoritarianism is not only the domination of the military, but also the domination of every government regime including civilians that do not implement checks and balances system in the execution of the government. This is what should be the focus of the problem. Apart from that, law enforcement authority actually is not only limited to the area of civil authority which is only given to the police as a representation of state authority which obtains authority from law, but rather to the police functions in general which can also be given to the military which functions as law enforcement officers (law enforcement officials) as explained in the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement as follows; "(a) The term "law enforcement officials", includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. (b) In countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities, whether uniformed or not, or by State security forces, the definition of law enforcement officials shall be regarded as including officers ofsuch services." In the explanation of Article 1 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement, it is clear that what is meant by "law enforcement officials" includes elected or appointed law enforcement officers who are given the authority to carry out arrests and detention. Furthermore, it is also possible if the law enforcement officer is assigned to a military force that is given police authority as long as that force is subject to and complies with the provisions of the Code of Conduct. So the keyword lies in obligations and responsibilities, and not in civil or military restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
