Aceh martial law authority not unaccountable

Aceh martial law authority not unaccountable

Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan, Lawyer, Jakarta

The martial law in the province of Aceh was issued in a decree
signed by President Megawati Soekarnoputri. The decision was
taken based on the reasoning that a comprehensive approach and
dialog had failed to change the separatist intentions of the Free
Aceh Movement (GAM) from unitary state of Indonesia (NKRI).

The government instead saw that the movement had spread,
adding to the suffering of the people, thus prompting the
government to decide to stop all this as soon as possible through
"integrated" efforts.

The President now holds the highest authority of the military
emergency structure, assisted by an executive body headed by
Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs (Gen.)
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The above decision was taken based on the President's
constitutional authority, which is further specified in Law No.
23/1959 on the state of emergency and Law No. 2/2002 on the
National Police. These are the legal references by which to judge
whether the authorities of the current military emergency in Aceh
are acting in accordance with the law.

Because of its emergency feature, the martial law authority is
very strong, but this does not mean it is unlimited or
unaccountable. Article 12 of Law No. 23/1959 stipulates that each
civil servant must provide all information needed by the
authorities, unless reasons justify otherwise. So if a civil
servant is still forced to provide the requested information even
though he has raised his reasons for not doing so, the authority
in charge could be held accountable.

It thus needs to be clarified whether the arrest of several
officials in Aceh was related to their refusal to provide reasons
for not releasing the requested information to authorities.

Paragraph 1 of Article 57 in Law No. 23 states that officials
of the martial law structure who abuse their power can be
sentenced to prison for a maximum of five years. Paragraph 2 says
the first article does not apply if the said abuse is a crime
regulated by another law, which entails a heavier punishment.

In the same law, Article 60 points out that those parties who
feel disadvantaged by actions mentioned in the law, which are
proved to have been taken without reason, are entitled to
compensation. 23/1959. Paragraph 2, Article 34, states that the
martial law authority has full or conditional power from the
President to regulate those issues under national law, apart from
those regulated under the law on state of emergency. Article 33
mentions a number of paragraphs that can be ignored by the
authorities, meaning that the authorities must abide with all the
other laws.

Authorities are entitled to arrest and detain people for 20
days at the most, but the arrest must be reported to the martial
law authority within 12 days. Within 10 days, the detainee must
be investigated, the result of which must be reported to the
martial law authority. The investigation must result in a dossier
(Article 32), and if in 20 days the investigation is not
completed and if detention is still required, the said person can
be detained up to 50 days by the central authority of martial
law. All arrests and detentions must be made with warrants.

This process is not regulated in the 1959 law, so here the
Criminal Code procedure applies. So if arrests and detentions is
conducted beyond what is regulated in the 1959 law, the Article 1
of Chapter X in the Criminal Code applies, and the military
authority can be brought to a civil court.