Aceh martial law authority not unaccountable<\/p>\n
Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan, Lawyer, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The martial law in the province of Aceh was issued in a decree
\nsigned by President Megawati Soekarnoputri. The decision was
\ntaken based on the reasoning that a comprehensive approach and
\ndialog had failed to change the separatist intentions of the Free
\nAceh Movement (GAM) from unitary state of Indonesia (NKRI).<\/p>\n
The government instead saw that the movement had spread,
\nadding to the suffering of the people, thus prompting the
\ngovernment to decide to stop all this as soon as possible through
\n\"integrated\" efforts.<\/p>\n
The President now holds the highest authority of the military
\nemergency structure, assisted by an executive body headed by
\nCoordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs (Gen.)
\nSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono.<\/p>\n
The above decision was taken based on the President's
\nconstitutional authority, which is further specified in Law No.
\n23\/1959 on the state of emergency and Law No. 2\/2002 on the
\nNational Police. These are the legal references by which to judge
\nwhether the authorities of the current military emergency in Aceh
\nare acting in accordance with the law.<\/p>\n
Because of its emergency feature, the martial law authority is
\nvery strong, but this does not mean it is unlimited or
\nunaccountable. Article 12 of Law No. 23\/1959 stipulates that each
\ncivil servant must provide all information needed by the
\nauthorities, unless reasons justify otherwise. So if a civil
\nservant is still forced to provide the requested information even
\nthough he has raised his reasons for not doing so, the authority
\nin charge could be held accountable.<\/p>\n
It thus needs to be clarified whether the arrest of several
\nofficials in Aceh was related to their refusal to provide reasons
\nfor not releasing the requested information to authorities.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 1 of Article 57 in Law No. 23 states that officials
\nof the martial law structure who abuse their power can be
\nsentenced to prison for a maximum of five years. Paragraph 2 says
\nthe first article does not apply if the said abuse is a crime
\nregulated by another law, which entails a heavier punishment.<\/p>\n
In the same law, Article 60 points out that those parties who
\nfeel disadvantaged by actions mentioned in the law, which are
\nproved to have been taken without reason, are entitled to
\ncompensation. 23\/1959. Paragraph 2, Article 34, states that the
\nmartial law authority has full or conditional power from the
\nPresident to regulate those issues under national law, apart from
\nthose regulated under the law on state of emergency. Article 33
\nmentions a number of paragraphs that can be ignored by the
\nauthorities, meaning that the authorities must abide with all the
\nother laws.<\/p>\n
Authorities are entitled to arrest and detain people for 20
\ndays at the most, but the arrest must be reported to the martial
\nlaw authority within 12 days. Within 10 days, the detainee must
\nbe investigated, the result of which must be reported to the
\nmartial law authority. The investigation must result in a dossier
\n(Article 32), and if in 20 days the investigation is not
\ncompleted and if detention is still required, the said person can
\nbe detained up to 50 days by the central authority of martial
\nlaw. All arrests and detentions must be made with warrants.<\/p>\n
This process is not regulated in the 1959 law, so here the
\nCriminal Code procedure applies. So if arrests and detentions is
\nconducted beyond what is regulated in the 1959 law, the Article 1
\nof Chapter X in the Criminal Code applies, and the military
\nauthority can be brought to a civil court.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/aceh-martial-law-authority-not-unaccountable-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}