Ending the cruelty of law

Ending the cruelty of law

Christine Susanna Tjhin, Jakarta

Almost seven years after reform, the rule of law as one of the
key pillars of democracy remains a fragile one. In law
enforcement, we seek the certainty of the law, but what we get is
the cruelty of the law.

According to the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights
Association's (PBHI) report for 2002, the police are responsible
for 60 percent of reported cases of state violence. In 2004,
another human rights organization, Imparsial, made similar
conclusion after researching media reports on violence.

Since the National Police separated from the Indonesian
Military (TNI) -- as part of the reform of Indonesia's security
sector and the democratization process -- the police have
regained their full original mandate to protect and to serve the
people, as stated in Law No. 2/2002 on the National Police.

We know that police reform has not been as "popular" as
military reform. The police face the extensive tasks of curbing
corruption and fighting terrorism. Nonetheless, the police are a
key element in the war against torture.

Is police culture one of violence? We do not want to jump to
conclusions, though this notion may well stem from the idea of
Indonesia having a culture of violence.

This thread can be traced from the legal and institutional
structures of the National Police and Criminal Code and/or the
courts. The law on the police is not conducive to mainstreaming
an antitorture paradigm, as article 18 allows police officers "to
take action in accordance to their judgments".

The inadequate human-rights education, meager wages and
benefits, poor disciplinary records and laziness of the police
utterly hamper "good judgment". If we combine this with the
content of the Criminal Code, which accepts a suspect's testimony
as legitimate proof in an investigation process, what we get is a
"functional" action in the police structure.

The establishment of the National Police Commission through
Presidential Regulation No. 17/2005, may open some opportunities.
However, the commission possesses nothing more than a
consultative mandate. It is not able to exercise control or
impose sanctions. It is more assigned to monitor -- not
investigate -- the performance of the police, sustain a
professional recruitment mechanism, and to handle public
complaints. Moreover, the independency of the commission is now
under question.

Another front is the controversial Criminal Code bill. Torture
is on the list of "new" types of crime. Yet the code is missing
the "state apparatus" element in its explanation on torture. The
state apparatus has the mandate, power and facilities to carry
out law enforcement, which is beyond civilian authority.
Infringements of such a duty, power and, most importantly, trust,
must be severely punished. Violations cannot be treated as "mere"
crimes.

At the very essence of matters, antitorture mainstreaming must
penetrate all security and legal reform. There are at least nine
bills in the National Legislation Program that are directly
relevant to security sector reform, 19 in legal reform and 30 on
matters crucial to civil and political rights. These are our
tasks in embedding the antitorture paradigm in state structure.

On a societal level, building intolerance toward torture and
distortions in the law-enforcement process will be a huge task
for civil society organizations and the general community. How
many realizes the hypocrisy behind calls for the government to
serve the people's interests and basic rights made by the same
people who take pleasure in seeing pickpocketers being beaten
black and blue or those who maintain "those buggers deserve it!".

The media could be a crucial element in creating such an
atmosphere by altering public perception through the crime
reality shows that have been produced these past few years.
Crime shows could pinpoint for the public where the abuses of
mandate and power have occurred and then challenge the public to
become critical and compassionate in responding to such abuses.
Through this, the public will send a powerful signal to the state
apparatus that we want certainty of law, not cruelty of law.

The author is a researcher at the Department of Politics and
Social Change, Centre for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) and a member of the Anti-Torture Network under the Asian
Human Rights Commission. xtine@csis.or.id