Police bill needs betterment to appease concerns

By Anton Tabah

SEMARANG (JP): Now that the House of Representatives have completed their deliberations on the police affairs bill, questions are being asked about whether the necessary improvements have been made.

Is the bill forward-looking or not? Has the bill reinstated the power previously taken away from the National Police? Can the bill right the legal system which deviates from the criminal code procedure or the basic law? What does the bill offer to improve police human resources? How responsive is the bill to globalization? How will the bill regulate a professional asylum in view of the increasingly difficult tasks of the police?

The public has greeted the bill with mixed reactions and strong criticisms. Public critiques, like those aired by noted lawyers, must be taken into account.

The reasons for such a negative assessment fall into three main groups. First, it does not give due respect to human rights. Second, it legitimizes violence. And third, it gives the police too much scope to use their power and authority.

These responses relate to a number of controversial articles, particularly Article 12 (s) and Article 13 (b).

Article 12 (s) states: "In a critical situation, to avoid a danger which threatens the safety of life and body, belongings, honor and decency, violence may be resorted to in accordance with the extent of the danger being faced."

While Article 13 (b) states: "To prohibit, dismiss, stop or take other actions against public festivities and other public activities not covered with a license or not compatible with the license granted if such activities are estimated to have a real potential to disturb public security and order or violate human rights."

The use of violence by law enforcers, in the face of a danger, has been assessed and adjusted in response to the spectrum of threats encountered in the line of duty.

The United Nations Resolution No. 34/169, "Code of Conduct for Enforcement Officials", which was passed on Dec. 17, 1979, allows law enforcers, in particular the police, to resort to force in protecting the interests of the community at large. The difference is that the UN never uses the term "violence".

This matter was emphasized in the eighth UN congress in Havana, Cuba, in 1990 under the theme of "Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders". The congress agreed to the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law-enforcement officers. Four important factors contributed to the final agreement.

First, there is a need to maintain and improve working conditions to guard against law enforcement officials using their position of power to accept or demand bribes.

Second, the threat to law enforcement officials must be seen as a threat to public stability as a whole.

Third, law enforcement officials play a vital role in protecting human rights.

Fourth, allowing law enforcement officials to resort to force in such a situation.

It stands to reason that the bill mentions such an authority in one of its articles. Of course, Article 12 (s) must be revised, particularly with respect to the words "act of violence". It will give a better sense of justice if it is revised into an act of emergency or "force", as formulated by the UN.

In addition, the use of force should of course be explicated to prevent misinterpretation and abuse of authority (in line with a previous UN resolution [1986] which calls on all member countries to pay special attention to this authority).

What will happen if the police are not allowed an authority to use force in their complicated and risk-filled jobs? Of course, criminals will be very happy and double over with laughter.

The same holds true with the comprehension of Article 13 (b) of the bill. In fact, this does not run counter to human rights because democracy and transparency have been redefined in the exercise of human rights and freedom.

The experiences gained by countries upholding the liberal democracy system shows that freedom and human rights of a liberal leaning have brought forth more disadvantages than otherwise.

Take, for example, the definition set out by David Epter to the effect that human rights and democracy constitute a high quality ability to control oneself. The licensing system in public activities is a subsystem of such self-control which will at the same time ensure that the rights of the community may be honored and maintained while orderliness, smooth running and security are guaranteed.

A system like this is applied in every country. Therefore, to guarantee security and order, which are the rights of citizens, it is necessary to establish management to deal with all forms of public disturbance.

And so a question may arise: Is there a more fruitful formulation than that contained in this article? There is, at least in a number of sectors.

The lost authorities of the National Police, for example, can again be introduced into the bill. As for the legal aspects deemed to be deviating from the basic law, they should be corrected in the bill.

The others are clauses relating to civil servant investigators, the Law on Customs Affairs and the Law on Fisheries which are deemed not to comply with the criminal procedural code.

A funny thing once occurred in the realm of fisheries. The findings of a police investigation into a criminal case in the fishery area was rejected by the prosecutor on the grounds that the investigation should have been conducted by the Navy. If this is so, then what will happen to the stipulation in the criminal procedural code that says the police are chief investigators.

We also have to pay attention to a suggestion made by Dr. Awaloedin Djamin who said that there should be a separate article dedicated to civil servant investigators. He argues that many civil servants deviate from the criminal procedural code.

The police, as chief investigators, are to serve as coordinators, patrons and supervisors of civil servants, according to the code. Therefore, the bill must clearly stipulate this (Kompas, April 22, 1997). However, the bill has yet to incorporate the civil servants item in a separate article.

As for the improvement of police human resources, it is more appropriate for the bill to regulates this through a system of recruitment and career development for as long as an officer is in active service.

Then there are problems relating to the mechanism for going abroad, such as the pursuit of suspects abroad, the growing number of tourists and an increase in Indonesians working abroad. Then there is the need to establish a police attache or a diplomat representing the National Police in every embassy.

There are a host of other problems which are global in nature. The police must have a more flexible authority. Compare this with other sections of the Indonesian Armed Forces who find it very difficult to run operations abroad.

The police force cannot afford a delay if they are chasing after criminals. Time is an essential factor. Perhaps this line of investigation will be more effective if it is incorporated in the bill.

The problem of professional asylum is an interesting issue. The police now face an increasingly tougher job with more risks (a mission impossible). For example, the punishment imposed on someone who attacks a police officer. In the United States, the culprit would be subjected to multiple punishment - a jail term, a fine and social work.

This makes the law more effective because it acts as a deterrent. Problems related to operational budgets and facilities and infrastructures should also be implied in bringing the police force to the fore. Without wide and rational support, improving the situation of police will be an empty slogan and a futile act.

Can this golden opportunity be seized? The answer lies in the quality of the bill itself.

The writer is a police officer and an observer of public security and order.