MSC: Bakamla does not lack investigation authority under rigid legal interpretation
Jakarta – The director of Maritime Strategic Center (MSC) Muhammad Sutisna has stated that the assertion that the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla) lacks investigation authority represents a rigid legal perspective.
Sutisna made this statement in response to remarks by retired rear admiral and military observer Soleman B. Ponto, who appeared as an expert witness for the petitioner during a continued hearing on the constitutional review of the Maritime Law at the Constitutional Court.
“The assertion that Bakamla lacks investigation authority is a rigid legal perspective that is irrelevant to the current situation because it disregards developments in constitutional law and the dynamics of global maritime security,” he said in a statement received in Jakarta on Wednesday.
Previously, Soleman stated during the hearing on Monday (23 February) that efforts to incorporate Bakamla into the law enforcement system through a narrative of coordination between nine agencies contained logical defects in criminal procedure law and contradicted Article 24 paragraph 3 of Law Number 6 of 1996 concerning Indonesian Waters.
The nine agencies include the Navy, National Police, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Customs, Immigration, National Narcotics Board, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and Bakamla.
Meanwhile, Sutisna stated it would be greatly mistaken to regard Article 24 paragraph 3 of the Indonesian Waters Law as a regulation that limits sole authority only to the Navy and National Police.
He explained that under the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori (newer regulations override older ones), Law Number 32 of 2014 concerning Maritime Affairs was enacted to detail and strengthen the maritime security mandate that was previously general in nature.
“Bakamla is a legitimate statutory mandate to carry out supervisory and enforcement functions as regulated in Article 63 of the Maritime Law,” Sutisna said.
According to him, the design created by the Maritime Law actually strengthens legal certainty by providing a national coordination mechanism for conducting maritime security and safety operations, without eliminating the attributive authority of law enforcement agencies already regulated in sectoral laws.
Within such a structure, patrol functions, initial enforcement functions, and investigative functions remain within the framework of the criminal justice system based on the principles of functional differentiation and due process.
Regarding criticism about the absence of investigator status or civil servant investigator (PPNS) status among Bakamla personnel, which was deemed to violate criminal procedure law, Sutisna described the argument as a failure to focus on the state’s obligations.
He said if Bakamla is currently considered not to have investigative authority, this is not a reason to curtail its functions.
“Rather, it is the obligation of the Constitutional Court and parliament to immediately harmonise regulations so that Bakamla is granted independent investigative authority to close the legal loophole in the handover process that has been questioned,” he stated.
For Sutisna, the presence of Bakamla in the coordination system of nine agencies is not a logical defect but a manifestation of the state’s efforts to synchronise law enforcement that has been overlapping.
Rather, he added, by positioning Bakamla as a sole authority with investigator status, the state provides legal certainty and human rights protection for maritime users.
“Without investigator status, coercive actions at sea do carry risks, but the solution is strengthening Bakamla’s legal status, not abolishing its authority,” Sutisna concluded.
The constitutional review registered under number 180/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by the director of PT Pelayaran Surya Bintang Timur shipping company Lukman Ladjoni. He is challenging Articles 59 paragraph 3, 61, 62 letter c, and 63 paragraph 1 of the Maritime Law.
On Monday (23 February), the Constitutional Court held a continued hearing with the agenda of hearing expert testimony. The petitioner presented Soleman Ponto, who is also a former head of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (Bais) of the TNI.
“The existence of Bakamla is not explicitly granted investigator status or PPNS status in the said law. As a result, this norm creates a risk of disconnection between factual authority and judicial control,” said Soleman during the hearing.