Military Involvement in Draft Counter-Terrorism Regulation Risks Abuse of Power and Threatens Civil Liberties and Democracy

Ikhsan Yosarie, a researcher on human rights and the security sector at SETARA Institute for Democracy and Peace, has assessed that the Draft Presidential Regulation (Perpres) on military involvement in counter-terrorism has the potential to violate the principles of civilian supremacy and the criminal justice system. He argues the draft is problematic on constitutional, democratic, and human rights grounds.

Article 2, paragraph (2) of the draft Perpres reintroduces a militaristic approach to handling terrorism. It outlines TNI functions encompassing deterrence, enforcement, and recovery.

“Article 3 even elaborates that the deterrence function is to be carried out by the TNI through four activities and/or operations, namely intelligence, territorial, information, and others,” said Ikhsan in Jakarta on Thursday, 12 February 2026.

Threat to Civil Liberties

Ikhsan, who is also a lecturer in Government Studies at Indo Global Mandiri University, noted that the Civil Society Coalition has consistently highlighted the phrase “other operations” in the draft. This phrase is extremely elastic and open to multiple interpretations, creating potential for abuse for political power interests and threatening civil liberties and democracy.

The Civil Society Coalition has also reiterated that the term “deterrence” (penangkalan) is not recognised in Law No. 5 of 2018 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism, which only recognises the term “prevention” (pencegahan).

Law No. 5 of 2018, in Article 1 paragraph 1, explicitly categorises terrorism as a criminal offence. Its handling falls within the criminal justice framework, with the National Police as the primary law enforcement actor and judicial mechanisms as the means of accountability. This categorisation means the handling mechanism is subject to the general court system.

“If the TNI is not subject to the general courts, how will accountability work if violence and human rights violations occur in the field caused by TNI personnel?” he asked.

Ikhsan explained that TNI involvement is possible under certain conditions — for example, with TNI participation classified as auxiliary support, deployed only when the escalation of terrorist acts exceeds the capacity of law enforcement authorities.

The draft regulation, Ikhsan said, also needs to clarify the nature of TNI involvement in terrorism escalation scenarios. The provisions in the draft Perpres only address the object of the threat without touching on escalation criteria.

“Granting the TNI independent deterrence and enforcement functions has the potential to create overlapping authority with law enforcement, given that terrorism falls under the category of criminal offences,” he said.

Ikhsan argued that reviving a draft Perpres previously criticised by various parties without substantive improvements would merely repeat old policies. This step also reflects the state’s failure to learn from public criticism and weakens the principle of civilian control over the security sector.

This situation, he continued, could serve as material for analysing why TNI reform has stalled despite more than 20 years of progress. One reason is that civil society criticism of the expansion of the TNI’s role is not treated as input for policy evaluation but is instead reduced to a procedural formality.

“This pattern reinforces the tendency towards elite-driven policymaking in the security sector, where the preferences of state actors dominate over the aspirations of citizens,” he said.

Constitutional Violation

Senior researcher at Imparsial, Al Araf, assessed that the draft Perpres is unconstitutional because it expands the TNI’s role in domestic deterrence and enforcement, contravenes the principle of due process of law, and risks the abuse of authority.

The Civil Society Coalition, including Al Araf, has urged the President to revoke and review the draft.

“The basis of this draft Perpres is Article 43 of the Terrorism Criminal Act Law, which mandates military involvement in counter-terrorism to be regulated through a Presidential Regulation,” he said on Monday, 16 February 2026.

The Brawijaya University Faculty of Law lecturer questioned the military’s presence in a law on criminal acts of terrorism. The institutions that should be regulated, according to Al Araf, are those with law enforcement authority. “Logically, it should regulate people with law enforcement authority — police, prosecutors, courts. Why is there an article about a Perpres on TNI involvement in terrorism within that law? So normatively, it is already wrong,” he said.

Al Araf stated that law enforcement must comply with the principle of due process of law, from arrest through investigation to trial. He highlighted the potential for violations if the military is involved in counter-terrorism and questioned the mechanism for pre-trial complaints.

“The question is, does the military understand what due process of law means? That is a long lesson. One of the principles is that you can only make an arrest if you have two sufficient pieces of evidence. If you cannot, you cannot arrest. And there are other principles in the due process of law that must be respected,” he said.

He therefore assessed that these provisions create legal chaos. TNI involvement through a Perpres is also deemed to contravene the rule of law.

Elastic and Multi-Interpretive Definition of Terrorism

Al Araf noted that another highly dangerous problem is the elastic and multi-interpretive definition of terrorism. He recalled that the President had once labelled demonstrations in August 2025 as treason or terrorism.

According to him, with a loose definition and room for unclear “other operations,” anyone could be accused of being a terrorist. In this context, pro-democracy groups, critics of government policy, and civil society are at risk of being silenced through the stigmatisation of terrorism.

“Moreover, the definition and labelling of terrorism in Indonesia is elastic. Abroad, the definitions of such groups are clear. So this could be misused against groups that differ from the government. This Perpres has an extremely broad definition extending to threats to safety, plus ideology. What kind of threat is ideology? The benchmarks are unclear,” he said.

The former director of Centra Initiative emphasised that military involvement in combating terrorism should only occur as a last resort when terrorism threatens sovereignty, and must be based on a political decision of the state, not merely a presidential order.

“If the TNI makes mistakes in handling terrorists, there is no clear judicial mechanism because soldiers are not subject to the general courts,” he said.