Attorney General's Office Guarded by TNI Personnel, Attorney General's Office Denies Intervention in Law Enforcement

JAKARTA, KOMPAS - The Attorney General's Office claims that the deployment of military personnel in high courts and district courts throughout Indonesia is solely for security purposes. In addition to being based on a memorandum of understanding between the two institutions, the Attorney General's Office stated that this is regulated by the Law on the Military.

As reported, Telegram Letter Number: ST/1192/2025 dated May 6, 2025, assigns the ranks of the Army to prepare and deploy personnel along with their equipment to secure the high prosecutor's office (kejati) and the district prosecutor's office (kejari). This telegram is based on the telegram letter from the Commander of the Armed Forces Number TR/422/2025 dated May 5, which orders the deployment of personnel to support the security of the high and district prosecutor's offices throughout Indonesia.

The details are as follows: one platoon-sized unit (SST) consisting of 30 personnel will be deployed to secure the high prosecutor's office, while for the security of the district prosecutor's office, one team equivalent to 10 personnel will be dispatched.

The assignment has drawn criticism and controversy. Civil society groups believe that the deployment of military personnel reinforces the presence of military intervention in civilian areas, particularly in law enforcement. Furthermore, there is currently no regulation regarding the assistance of the military in operations other than war (OMSP) concerning security activities at the prosecutor's office by military personnel.

The Head of the Legal Information Center of the Attorney General's Office, Harli Siregar, stated on Wednesday (14/5/2025) that the Attorney General's Office and the military have a memorandum of understanding containing 8 points of agreement. One of the agreed points concerns the support provided by the military for the duties and functions of the Attorney General's Office.

"Yes, one of them is from the security side. That is what was realized in yesterday's telegram," said Harli.

Security at the prosecutor's office by military personnel, according to him, is related to the establishment of the Deputy Attorney General for Military Criminal Affairs (Jampidmil). In carrying out its duties and functions, Jampidmil coordinates extensively with the military. To facilitate this, a memorandum of understanding was created between the two institutions.

In addition to being based on a memorandum of understanding, the deployment of TNI personnel to secure the prosecutor's office is also grounded in the TNI Law. Article 7, Paragraph 2 of Law Number 34 of 2004 regulates military operations other than war (OMSP), which includes provisions regarding the security of vital national objects that are of a strategic nature.

In this regard, the prosecution is considered a vital state object of strategic value. With this security, prosecutors are expected to work effectively and comfortably. Harli also ensured that the prosecution remains accessible to the public, including the press.

Support from the military in the prosecutor's office, according to Harli, is also unrelated to the law enforcement functions carried out by the prosecutor's office. He assured that the security provided by the military is more focused on physical protection of assets, such as buildings.

"It is not about securing the process, because our law enforcement process is independent here. Therefore, there should be no concern that with the presence of the military, there will be any intervention from the prosecution," said Harli.

In a written statement, the Head of the TNI Information Center, Major General Kristomei Sianturi, stated that the assistance of the TNI to the Prosecutor's Office is part of the official cooperation between the TNI and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, as outlined in Memorandum of Understanding Number NK/6/IV/2023/TNI dated April 6, 2023. There are 8 areas of cooperation between the two institutions.

It is not about securing the process, as our law enforcement process is independent here. Therefore, there should be no concern that the presence of the military will lead to intervention by the prosecution.

The scope includes cooperation in education and training, information exchange for the purposes of law enforcement, the assignment of TNI soldiers within the prosecutor's office, the assignment of prosecutors as supervisors in the TNI Attorney General's Office, and support and assistance of TNI personnel in carrying out the duties and functions of the prosecutor's office. Other aspects include support for the TNI in civil and administrative matters, the utilization of facilities and infrastructure, as well as technical coordination in investigations and prosecutions in connectivity cases.

"All forms of support from the military are carried out based on official requests and measurable needs, while still adhering to the applicable legal provisions," said Kristomei.

Separately, the Chairman of the National Setara Institute, Hendardi, opined that the orders from the Commander of the National Armed Forces and the Army Chief of Staff, which serve as the basis for the deployment of military personnel to the prosecutor's office, are in conflict with the Constitution and the underlying laws, particularly the Law on Judicial Power, the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, the Law on National Defense, and the Law on the National Armed Forces. Moreover, there are no objective conditions indicating the necessity for the security of civil law enforcement institutions by military personnel.

Conversely, according to Hendardi, the prosecutor's request to the military for security activities represents a form of arrogance of the prosecutor's office as a civil institution in law enforcement. This request also raises questions regarding the political motives of the prosecutor's office through the increasingly open institutional collaboration with the military.

"The prosecution should understand that they are part of the criminal justice system, which should be entirely a civil institution. Dragging the military into all elements of the criminal justice system clearly contradicts civil supremacy and the rule of law," said Hendardi.

From this mobilization, Hendardi stated, it becomes increasingly clear that militarism is strengthening within the institutional framework of law enforcement. This is considered to potentially weaken the rule of law. In fact, the military only has jurisdiction over law enforcement within its own environment.

Instead of entering civil law enforcement institutions, the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces is expected to pay more special attention to the revision of Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice. This law is considered no longer in accordance with civil supremacy and the rule of law in the governance of a democratic system.