Mutasi TNI Perlu Memperhatikan Aspek Profesionalitas dan Penghormatan HAM

Siaran Pers Bersama
Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil

Proses mutasi di dalam tubuh Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI) marak dilakukan belakangan ini. Proses mutasi tersebut menempatkan perwira-perwira tinggi TNI pada jabatan strategis di dalam tubuh institusi militer dan lembaga pemerintah lainnya. Namun demikian, proses mutasi tersebut memberikan catatan-catatan tersendiri terkait dengan masalah Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM).

Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil menilai proses mutasi TNI sepatutnya mempertimbangkan aspek profesionalitas, kompetensi, dan penghormatan atas tata nilai hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia. Dalam konteks itu, prinsip profesionalitas di dalam tubuh TNI tentunya perlu untuk menjadikan tata nilai HAM sebagai prinsip dasar proses mutasi TNI.

Meski pimpinan TNI memiliki otoritas untuk melakukan proses promosi dan mutasi di dalam tubuh TNI, namun mereka sudah semestinya memperhatikan aspek-aspek tersebut. Promosi dan mutasi di dalam tubuh TNI untuk menduduki jabatan-jabatan strategis sebaiknya tidak diberikan kepada para perwira tinggi TNI yang diduga kuat memiliki persoalan terkait dengan pelanggaran HAM.

Kami memandang proses mutasi beberapa perwira tinggi TNI kali ini tidak menjadikan tata nilai HAM sebagai dasar pertimbangannya. Hal ini terlihat dari pengangkatan beberapa perwira tinggi TNI yang diduga kuat memiliki permasalahan terkait dengan kasus pelanggaran HAM di Papua (khususnya terkait dengan pembunuhan Theys Hiyo Eluay) maupun peristiwa kasus penghilangan paksa tahun 1997-1998.

Pengangkatan para perwira tinggi TNI yang diduga kuat melanggar HAM tersebut semakin memperpanjang lingkaran impunitas yang terjadi di Indonesia. Di tengah proses penyelesaian kasus penghilangan orang yang belum selesai serta pembunuhan terhadap Theys Hiyo Eluay yang tidak menghasilkan keadilan di dalam pengungkapannya, tentunya proses mutasi tersebut mencederai penghormatan HAM di negeri ini.

Koalisi mendesak Presiden untuk mengevaluasi kebijakan pimpinan TNI terkait dengan proses mutasi tersebut yang dinilai tidak sejalan dengan agenda penghormatan HAM sebagaimana ditegaskan dalam Nawacita Presiden Jokowi. Selaku otoritas politik, Presiden perlu meluruskan jalan penegakan HAM di Indonesia, dan salah satunya bisa dilakukan dengan cara menghimbau kepada pimpinan tinggi TNI untuk melakukan proses mutasi dengan memperhatikan aspek profesionalitas dan tata nilai HAM. Lebih dari itu, Presiden perlu mengambil langkah-langkah terobosan untuk menyelesaikan kasus pelanggaran HAM yang hingga kini belum kunjung mendapatkan titik terang.

Kami menilai, di tengah luka masyarakat Papua atas konflik dan kekerasan yang terus terjadi di tanah mereka, pengangkatan perwira tinggi TNI yang diduga terkait dengan kasus pelanggaran HAM di Papua akan menambah problematika baru dalam penyelesaian konflik tersebut. Apalagi dinamika sekuritisasi di Papua dengan pendekatan operasi militer masih terus berlangsung hingga saat ini, yang diikuti dengan penambahan kapasitas pasukan di Papua sebagaimana terlihat dari pendirian Kodam baru di Papua Barat.

Pemerintah seharusnya menyadari, penyelesaian konflik Papua tidak bisa dilakukan dengan pendekatan keamanan melalui operasi militer. Di masa lalu, penerapan Daerah Operasi Militer (DOM) di Papua telah mengakibatkan praktik-praktik kekerasan yang mengakibatkan pelanggaran HAM dan hingga kini masih belum selesai penuntasannya. Karena itu, pemerintah seharusnya mengambil jalan lain untuk penanganan konflik Papua, yaitu dengan membuka ruang dialog dan negosiasi.

Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil mendesak agar:

  1. Presiden dan DPR mengevaluasi kebijakan pimpinan TNI terkait dengan mutasi TNI yang tidak sejalan dengan upaya penghormatan dan penegakan HAM di Indonesia;
  2. Presiden menyelesaikan kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM yang hingga kini belum mendapatkan titik terang;
  3. Pemerintah membuka ruang dialog serta negosiasi sebagai jalan baru penyelesaian konflik Papua.


Jakarta, 22 September 2016

Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil
(Imparsial, YLBHI, ICW, Elsam, LBH Pers, HRWG, Pusat Studi Papua UKI, Lesperssi, Gema Demokrasi)

Bagikan :

Upholding justice in Cebongan

The murder of four detainees in their cells in Cebongan prison in Yogyakarta on March 23 cannot be justified by any means. The incident constitutes a serious threat to rule of law in Indonesia, especially because it occurred inside a state institution at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Army investigators have announced that 11 commandos from Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) Group 2 were behind the raid and the executions. Credit should go to the Army and to the National Police for launching probes of the case. However, the initial findings of the Army Military Police are just the beginning. The perpetrators must be tried under an independent, transparent, accountable and fair mechanism of justice. Most importantly, the homicides should be solved in a democratic process.

The Army’s report has left several questions unanswered, including a claim that the attack was “spontaneous”, which is almost impossible, given the intense communication among the commandos before and during the raid; the use of Army-issued weapons in the assault; the specific target location, Cebongan prison, which is some distance from their base in Kartasura, Central Java; and the execution of the detainees.

The Army has also given contradictory information related to the attack. On one hand, investigators said the atrocity was committed after three commandos returned from training on Mount Lawu in Karanganyar, Central Java, while eight others joined en route to the prison. On the other hand, the commander of Kopassus Group 2’s intelligence unit stated that none of his 800 troops were outside of their barracks when the incident took place.

Without further explanation, the credibility of both the Army and the National Police investigation will be at stake. Civil society groups have urged the President to set up an independent team comprising representatives of the Indonesian Military (TNI), the National Police, the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), all to no avail.

In the middle of investigation, the commander of the Diponegoro Military District overseeing Central Java and Yogyakarta and the Yogyakarta Police chief were replaced. While TNI headquarters said that the replacement of its officer was a regular personnel change, the person in the street is smart enough to make the leap between the transfer and the prison attack. The general had publicly denied the involvement of TNI members in the incident just hours after it had occurred.

However, the transfer has raised eyebrows, since Kopassus Group 2 does not fall under the Diponegoro Military District. If any Army soldier had to be removed following the incident, it should be the commander of Kopassus Group 2.

The Army’s team should investigate whether the Kopassus Group 2 commander was involved or failed to control his soldiers.

Nevertheless, Kopassus chief Maj. Gen. Agus Sutomo stated his readiness to take full responsibility for the act of violence. This acceptance of responsibility is rare, especially considering that the legal process against the commandos has not even started. In a stark contrast, no senior military officer ever publicly claimed responsibility for the abduction of student and anti-government activists in 1997-1998 that allegedly involved Kopassus commandos.

The involvement of 11 commandos in the prison attack has only shown that ongoing military reforms have not reduced, let alone stopped, acts of violence perpetrated by TNI members. In other words, reforming the Indonesian Military is a pressing concern for the nation.

Further, the Cebongan case may just be the tip of the iceberg. There are potentially many acts of violence involving TNI members that have gone unreported. Only one month before Cebongan, a group of TNI members attacked a police station in Ogan Komering Ulu, South Sumatra. The civil society coalition for security sector reform has recorded more than 80 cases of violence involving the military between 2004 and 2011.

The cases cannot be deemed as individual crimes, because such incidents have repeatedly occurred. This shows a gap within the TNI system that has created interstices, either directly or indirectly, allowing some to commit violent acts. The interstices have occured because of the TNI’s flawed education system — particularly pertaining to the rule of law, a misinterpretation of esprit de corps, an entrenched New Order military culture dominated by nepotism, weak oversight of soldiers and their use of weapons, the failed restructuring of the territorial command system, the poor pay and benefits afforded to rank-and-file TNI members and a military justice system which tends to give minimum sanctions resulting in a minimal deterrence effect.

If there is a blessing in disguise following the prison attack, it should be new momentum for the President and the House of Representatives for military justice reform. It is therefore of great importance that the President issue a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to revise the 1997 Military Court Laws so that the commandos can be tried in a civilian district court. While such an amendment was included on the national legislative agenda for 2004 to 2009, it was never brought for a vote.

The purpose of the Perppu is to make a clear demarcation between military and district courts. As suggested by many civil society groups, military courts should focus on military crimes, while military personnel who commit general crimes should stand trial in district court.

Revision of the military justice system is an integral part of military reform as President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono himself has said. Such an amendment is mandated not only by the TNI Law No. 34/2004, but also the Constitution, which says all citizens are equal before the law.

The much-awaited completion of the military reform will not happen unless the military justice system fulfills the constitutional mandate.

Al Araf
Imparsial Program Director

JAKARTA POST, 11 April 2013

Bagikan :

No more delay to the ratification of the Rome Statute

A group of government officials, NGO activists and journalists visited the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands recently. Led by Deputy Law and Human Rights Minister Denny Indrayana, the delegation intended to learn about academic studies as well as administrative and technical procedures required for ratifying the 1998 Rome Statute (The Jakarta Post, March 4).

It was not the first mission sent by the government to the ICC. According to the president of the ICC, judge Sang-hyun Song, many Indonesian delegates have come to the court with the same objective, but the country missed the ratification momentum in 2008 based on the National Action Plan for Human Rights 2004-2009. 

The ratification plan was then included in the National Action Plan for Human Rights 2011-2014, which sets the date of accession of the statute as 2013.

For many years, experts and government officials have been debating this issue. The opposition believes the ratification will endanger the sovereignty of the state and pave the way for prosecution of retired generals for their alleged involvement in past human rights abuses.

For almost a decade, the opposition has been unable to provide clever arguments for its resistance to the ratification. 

Some say the ratification will discourage younger generations from joining the Indonesian Military (TNI). Of course, this argument ignores Indonesia’s capability in international relations and highlights a lack of understanding about international law.

Up to now 121 states have ratified the Rome Statute, twice the number of parties when the statute entered into force in 2002. Indonesia has been busy buying time by searching for weaknesses in the court only to come to a conclusion that ratification of the statute would threaten state sovereignty. 

In 2010, concerns loomed in Indonesia over the implementation of the complementarity principle, which the country’s delegates in the Kampala Review Conference misunderstood. In connection with the principle of complementarity, Indonesia reemphasized the importance of Paragraph 10 of the Preamble and Article 17 of the statute and that the concepts of the “inability” or “unwillingness” of Indonesia to prosecute state officials for their role in human rights violations should not easily be used as a pretext for ICC intervention.

As a country that was involved actively in the negotiation of the statute, Indonesia has mistakenly understood the principle, which is the backbone of the court. The statement evinced Indonesia’s failure to understand the substance of the Rome Statute.

At home, Indonesia has been busy with maneuvering by the security sector in proposing a number of bills that potentially jeopardize democracy and human rights, such as the bill on national security, the bill on social conflict management and the bill on state intelligence. 

Special emphasis should be given to the bill on national security which, if endorsed by the House of Representatives before it ratifies the Rome Statute, will create a more repressive atmosphere in the country and as such, will shift the policy direction of the government.

Those developments lead to pessimism about the prospect of the ratification, although it is true that civil society can challenge the draconian bills in the Constitutional Court. 

Even if the court upholds the draconian laws, the judges’ interpretation of them will help state officials to identify dos and don’ts while conducting their duties. Furthermore, the main purpose of ratification is to change the attitudes, strategies and policies of the security apparatus.

The TNI and the National Police are the two primary actors in the security sector who often claim to be easy targets of the ICC because of their use of excessive force. 

To minimize that situation, the international law provides full protection to security forces that use force within the legal framework. It means, they can use violence based on the principles of proportionality, necessity and last but not least humanity.

Moreover, Indonesia’s accession to the Rome Statute will have a positive impact on the military, through a strengthening of clear rules of engagement during military operations which emphasize the protection of rights and fundamental freedoms. 

It is time for our security forces to stop worrying about their activities but rather look for protection from the International Court. As we know, Indonesia is very active in sending peacekeepers under the United Nations’ flag throughout the world, the statute will provide full protection to them if crimes occur in their areas of duty. 

In other words, Indonesia has spent too much time studying the court, this is the right time to join the ICC. There is no reason for Indonesia to delay the ratification of the Rome Statute. The statute is not against the Constitution, but rather strengthens it by embracing Indonesia in a broad front against impunity.

In terms of security sector reform, ratification can support and enhance professionalism and respect for human rights among the security services and encourage further reform within the security sector. Besides, the international community is waiting for Indonesia’s realization of its commitment to ending impunity and embracing international justice. 

The ratification will contribute to the process of Indonesia’s transition to democracy by building a society that is able to say “no” to serious human rights violations and impunity.

Bhatara Ibnu Reza
Operational Director of the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (Imparsial) and Member of the Indonesian Civil Society for  the Ratification of the International Criminal Court

JAKARTA POST, 06 April 2013

Bagikan :