The Dignity of the Rule of Law Amidst Enforcement Dynamics
The classic phrase ‘Fiat justitia ruat caelum’ (Let justice be done though the heavens fall) reflects that law is not merely an instrument of power, but the primary foundation for creating order, certainty, and justice in national life. In a democracy that upholds the supremacy of law like Indonesia, public trust in law enforcement officials is the main asset for the law to function properly. However, recently, Indonesia’s public sphere has been coloured by various law enforcement dynamics that have captured public attention. The spotlight is not only on the cases being handled by law enforcement officials but also on the relationship between the law enforcement institutions themselves.
The naming of a retired police general as a suspect by the Attorney General’s Office in an alleged corruption case involving the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme, followed by the Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor) opening an investigation into alleged criminal acts involving the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), has generated various speculations among the public. Although each institution has emphasised that all actions were taken based on their respective authorities and applicable legal mechanisms, these dynamics have shaped public perception of tension between law enforcement agencies.
Regardless of whether this perception is accurate, the phenomenon deserves collective attention. The real issue is not which institution is right or wrong, but how these dynamics can affect public trust in the overall legal system. When public attention is more absorbed by the relationship between law enforcement agencies than the substance of the cases being processed, a more fundamental question arises: is law enforcement truly being carried out independently, professionally, and free from extra-legal interests? This question ultimately tests not only the credibility of each institution but also the dignity of Indonesia as a state of law.
This phenomenon should not be viewed merely as an issue concerning law enforcement institutions. More importantly, the developing dynamics have the potential to influence public trust in the legal system as a whole. The public ultimately judges not only the final outcome of a case but also observes how the legal process is conducted. When the public sphere is filled with narratives indicating differences in stance among law enforcement agencies, a simple yet fundamental question arises in the public’s mind: is the law truly being enforced objectively and free from interests outside the law itself?
Public trust is one of the main foundations of a state of law. Interestingly, various national surveys indicate that the level of public trust in law enforcement institutions remains relatively high. An Indikator Politik Indonesia survey in early 2026 placed the Attorney General’s Office as the law enforcement institution with the highest level of public trust. Meanwhile, a Kompas Research and Development survey in mid-2026 showed that public trust in the National Police had increased to 82.4 percent. This data demonstrates that the public fundamentally still grants legitimacy to law enforcement officials to carry out their constitutional duties. However, public trust is not permanent. Trust will only endure if accompanied by consistency, transparency, accountability, and professionalism in every law enforcement process.
The Indonesian Constitution provides a very clear foundation. Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia affirms that Indonesia is a state of law (rechtstaat), not a state of power (machstaat). The consequence of this principle is that all actions by state administrators, including law enforcement officials, must be subject to the law and make the law the commander in every decision-making process. A state of law is not sufficiently measured by the number of laws and regulations it possesses, but rather by the extent to which the law is enforced fairly, consistently, and without discrimination.
This line of thought aligns with the legal system theory proposed by Lawrence M. Friedman in his book ‘The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective’ (1975). Friedman explains that the success of a legal system is determined by three main components: legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture. These three elements form an inseparable unity. Legal substance refers to all laws and regulations governing societal life. Legal structure refers to the institutions that administer the law, including the Police, the Attorney General’s Office, the Courts, and other law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, legal culture is the community’s legal culture, namely the level of awareness, compliance, and trust in the law.
If Friedman’s theory is applied to Indonesia’s current conditions, the greatest challenge for the rule of law no longer lies in the aspect of legal substance. This is based on the fact that Indonesia already possesses thousands of regulations governing almost all aspects of national and state life. Various legal reforms also continue to be carried out, from the formation of new laws to reforms in various legal sectors. The real problem that must be addressed is…