Draft Presidential Regulation on TNI Tasks: Could Demonstrations Be Classified as Terrorism?
A researcher from Raksha Initiatives, Gina Sabrina, has stated that the draft Presidential Regulation concerning TNI tasks in combating terrorism contains extensive interpretive scope. She suspects that demonstrations could be interpreted as terrorist acts constituting a threat to state ideology or national sovereignty.
“Demonstrations could then be considered as a threat to state ideology or national sovereignty,” she said during a webinar titled “Problems of Presidential Regulation on TNI Involvement in Combating Terrorism and Current Challenges in Counter-Terrorism Efforts” on Thursday, 12 March 2026.
Article 9(i) of the regulation permits action against other acts of terrorism that endanger state ideology, national sovereignty, territorial defence of Indonesia, and the safety of the entire nation. However, the article fails to specify what constitutes a threat to state ideology.
Under the theory of legislative regulation formation, as established in Law Number 12 of 2011 as amended in 2019, implementing regulations should provide clear provisions without opening wide interpretive scope. According to Sabrina, the impact of such broad interpretation could be applied arbitrarily.
“For instance, could this be linked to articles on sedition in the Criminal Code? Or attacks on the dignity of the head of state? Or articles concerning the dissemination of ideologies such as Marxism, Leninism, and Communism?” she asked.
Sabrina noted that such broad interpretation cannot be separated from Indonesia’s current socio-political context. The public has become increasingly critical, and in recent years there have been waves of large-scale demonstrations.
She expressed concern that articles with broad interpretive scope could classify demonstrations as threats to state ideology or national sovereignty. She particularly highlighted TNI involvement in demonstrations in August 2025.
“Several journalistic investigation reports even mention operations involving military personnel,” she said.
According to her, this article could legitimise TNI involvement in demonstrations by classifying such actions as endangering state ideology or national safety.
Sabrina also criticised the absence of clear indicators regarding when TNI can be deployed. The regulation fails to specify under what conditions the TNI could be involved.
“If we look at practices in other countries, there are typically clear indicators. For example, when police capacity becomes inadequate or when the threat escalation increases significantly,” she said.
Sabrina further raised concerns about civilian control mechanisms over TNI involvement in counter-terrorism operations. Under the previous TNI Law, the implementation of Military Operations Other Than War (OMSP) required a state political decision, which Sabrina views as a form of civilian control over the military in a democratic system.
However, following amendments to the TNI Law, OMSP implementation, including TNI involvement in counter-terrorism operations, is now regulated through Presidential Regulation. Consequently, Sabrina argues that civilian control mechanisms have become weakened.
Nevertheless, Sabrina stated that TNI involvement must be accompanied by explanations regarding operational objectives, time limits, units involved, funding sources, and accountability mechanisms in case of violations. “These matters are not clearly regulated in this draft Presidential Regulation,” she concluded.