DPR Questions The Role Of The TNI In Security Of Prosecutors, Legal Experts: Melenceng From Tupoksi

Illustration of the TNI security rally (ANTARA)

JAKARTA - Leaders and members of the Indonesian House of Representatives are busy questioning the role of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) which has recently been directed to secure the offices of the Prosecutor's Office throughout Indonesia.

Criminal law expert Abdul Fickar Hadjar assesses that the Indonesian House of Representatives has the right and authority to question the steps taken by state institutions, especially related to monitoring the use of the budget and in carrying out the main duties and functions in accordance with applicable regulations.

Abdul Fickar said that the task of supervising the DPR is very important considering the need for caution so that every state institution does not leave its limits on its authority. In addition, the state budget can also be used on target.

"This is also the duty of the DPR to supervise the TNI which has deviated from the main duties and functions stipulated by the Law (UU). It must also be considered that the distribution of APBN funds is appropriate," said Abdul Fickar, Thursday, May 22.

As is known, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Puan Maharani, previously asked the TNI to provide an official explanation regarding the policy of deploying troops or soldiers as security personnel for prosecutors throughout Indonesia. According to him, transparency is needed so as not to cause misunderstandings in the community.

Meanwhile, Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives in partnership with the Attorney General's Office (AGO) also questioned the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) at the Indonesian Attorney General's Office, Febrie Adriansyah, regarding the security of the prosecutor's office by the TNI.

Member of Commission III Sarifuddin Sudding questioned whether there was an 'emergency' situation behind the deployment of the TNI at the prosecutor's office. Sudding is of the view that the security of the prosecutor's office is sufficient for the police to do, there is no need to involve TNI personnel.

Fickar also explained that the TNI has the main task of maintaining state sovereignty and facing threats from within and outside the country. Therefore, according to him, the TNI should not be involved in security matters related to order in other state institutions.

"The TNI is its business to defend the country's sovereignty. Meanwhile, the Prosecutor's Office is the state's power to curb crime, whether it is detrimental to the public interest, especially maintaining state losses," explained Fickar.

Fickar said the DPR's move to question the deployment of TNI personnel was appropriate. Because as an institution that focuses on defense from external threats, the role of the TNI must remain in accordance with the main tasks and functions regulated by law.

"The DPR should reprimand the TNI and the Prosecutor's Office in order to accuracy in the use of the state budget," he said.

Moreover, said Fickar, the presence of TNI personnel in securing the Prosecutor's office can cause friction between the TNI and Polri because the two institutions have a intersecting function.

Although there is no explicit prohibition in legal regulations regarding the involvement of the TNI in security duties at state institutions, Fickar believes that this step is not in line with existing principles. He considered that the TNI Commander General Agus Subiyanto should consider withdrawing his soldiers who have been assigned to guard the prosecutor's office.

"So the TNI is for war, not for guarding the inside post, this is degrading to the TNI. The person in charge of domestic order security is the police. So the police are the right ones," said Fickar.

Furthermore, Fickar asked the TNI, the Attorney General's Office and the police to explain transparently about security policies in order to anticipate the perceptions and suspicions of people who trust the TNI more to maintain security.

"If the prosecutor does not want to be guarded by the police, it means that there is nothing wrong with it, the Attorney General and the National Police Chief must be able to explain this," concluded the Criminal Law Lecturer at Trisakti University.

Previously, Member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Sarifuddin Sudding, questioned the reasons behind the TNI's security at the prosecutor's office. He considered that the security of the prosecutor's office was sufficient by the police.

"All this time there has been a threat so that the TNI is guarded? What I think is that there are actually enough members of the police, they don't have to be TNI," asked Sudding during a working meeting of Commission III with the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Tuesday, May 20.

Sudding also admitted that he was worried that the security was carried out not only because there was an emergency, but also the efforts of the Indonesian Attorney General's Office to show its strength.

"Indeed, so far there have been emergency conditions and threats so that the TNI is guarded? Don't do this like a show force, so people who want to go to the prosecutor's office have reluctance," he said.

Responding to the question, Febrie stated that he and his staff in the Special Crimes Division did not receive any threats, so they continued to carry out their duties as usual.

"When asked about threats, nothing. Until now we are still running," replied Febrie.