Jakarta \u2013 The director of Maritime Strategic Center (MSC) Muhammad\nSutisna has stated that the assertion that the Indonesian Maritime\nSecurity Agency (Bakamla) lacks investigation authority represents a\nrigid legal perspective.<\/p>\n
Sutisna made this statement in response to remarks by retired rear\nadmiral and military observer Soleman B. Ponto, who appeared as an\nexpert witness for the petitioner during a continued hearing on the\nconstitutional review of the Maritime Law at the Constitutional\nCourt.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe assertion that Bakamla lacks investigation authority is a rigid\nlegal perspective that is irrelevant to the current situation because it\ndisregards developments in constitutional law and the dynamics of global\nmaritime security,\u201d he said in a statement received in Jakarta on\nWednesday.<\/p>\n
Previously, Soleman stated during the hearing on Monday (23 February)\nthat efforts to incorporate Bakamla into the law enforcement system\nthrough a narrative of coordination between nine agencies contained\nlogical defects in criminal procedure law and contradicted Article 24\nparagraph 3 of Law Number 6 of 1996 concerning Indonesian Waters.<\/p>\n
The nine agencies include the Navy, National Police, Ministry of\nTransportation, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Customs,\nImmigration, National Narcotics Board, Ministry of Environment and\nForestry, and Bakamla.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Sutisna stated it would be greatly mistaken to regard\nArticle 24 paragraph 3 of the Indonesian Waters Law as a regulation that\nlimits sole authority only to the Navy and National Police.<\/p>\n
He explained that under the principle of lex posterior derogat legi\npriori (newer regulations override older ones), Law Number 32 of 2014\nconcerning Maritime Affairs was enacted to detail and strengthen the\nmaritime security mandate that was previously general in nature.<\/p>\n
\u201cBakamla is a legitimate statutory mandate to carry out supervisory\nand enforcement functions as regulated in Article 63 of the Maritime\nLaw,\u201d Sutisna said.<\/p>\n
According to him, the design created by the Maritime Law actually\nstrengthens legal certainty by providing a national coordination\nmechanism for conducting maritime security and safety operations,\nwithout eliminating the attributive authority of law enforcement\nagencies already regulated in sectoral laws.<\/p>\n
Within such a structure, patrol functions, initial enforcement\nfunctions, and investigative functions remain within the framework of\nthe criminal justice system based on the principles of functional\ndifferentiation and due process.<\/p>\n
Regarding criticism about the absence of investigator status or civil\nservant investigator (PPNS) status among Bakamla personnel, which was\ndeemed to violate criminal procedure law, Sutisna described the argument\nas a failure to focus on the state\u2019s obligations.<\/p>\n
He said if Bakamla is currently considered not to have investigative\nauthority, this is not a reason to curtail its functions.<\/p>\n
\u201cRather, it is the obligation of the Constitutional Court and\nparliament to immediately harmonise regulations so that Bakamla is\ngranted independent investigative authority to close the legal loophole\nin the handover process that has been questioned,\u201d he stated.<\/p>\n
For Sutisna, the presence of Bakamla in the coordination system of\nnine agencies is not a logical defect but a manifestation of the state\u2019s\nefforts to synchronise law enforcement that has been overlapping.<\/p>\n
Rather, he added, by positioning Bakamla as a sole authority with\ninvestigator status, the state provides legal certainty and human rights\nprotection for maritime users.<\/p>\n
\u201cWithout investigator status, coercive actions at sea do carry risks,\nbut the solution is strengthening Bakamla\u2019s legal status, not abolishing\nits authority,\u201d Sutisna concluded.<\/p>\n
The constitutional review registered under number 180\/PUU-XXIII\/2025\nwas filed by the director of PT Pelayaran Surya Bintang Timur shipping\ncompany Lukman Ladjoni. He is challenging Articles 59 paragraph 3, 61,\n62 letter c, and 63 paragraph 1 of the Maritime Law.<\/p>\n
On Monday (23 February), the Constitutional Court held a continued\nhearing with the agenda of hearing expert testimony. The petitioner\npresented Soleman Ponto, who is also a former head of the Strategic\nIntelligence Agency (Bais) of the TNI.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe existence of Bakamla is not explicitly granted investigator\nstatus or PPNS status in the said law. As a result, this norm creates a\nrisk of disconnection between factual authority and judicial control,\u201d\nsaid Soleman during the hearing.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/msc-bakamla-does-not-lack-investigation-authority-under-rigid-legal-interpretation-1772015243", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }