Dinda Charelina Tahir Saputri

Disparitas Implementasi Sop Anti Anarkis Satuan Brimob Dengan Pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998 Dalam Penanganan Unjuk Rasa Di Indonesia

Introduction

Disparitas implementasi sop anti anarkis satuan brimob dengan pelaksanaan undang-undang nomor 9 tahun 1998 dalam penanganan unjuk rasa di indonesia. Analisis disparitas implementasi SOP Anti Anarkis Brimob dengan UU No. 9/1998 dalam penanganan unjuk rasa di Indonesia. Soroti akuntabilitas hukum dan HAM.

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing the handling of public demonstrations in Indonesia and to examine the legal accountability of the Indonesian National Police Mobile Brigade Corps (Brimob) when actions undertaken during crowd control violate the Anti-Anarchist Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and statutory regulations. The study employs a normative juridical approach through the examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, including the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 9 of 1998 concerning Freedom of Expression in Public, Law No. 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police, and internal police regulations related to demonstration management. Data were analyzed qualitatively using statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that Indonesian legal provisions emphasize the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights to express opinions while simultaneously mandating the maintenance of public order and security. Violations of operational procedures by Brimob personnel may result in administrative sanctions, criminal liability, and state responsibility for human rights violations and compensation claims. The study concludes that strengthening accountability mechanisms, supervision, and procedural compliance is essential to ensure that demonstration management remains proportional, lawful, and respectful of human rights principles.

Review

This study tackles a highly pertinent and critical issue concerning the handling of public demonstrations in Indonesia, specifically examining the potential disparity between the Indonesian National Police Mobile Brigade Corps' (Brimob) internal Anti-Anarchist Standard Operating Procedures and the broader national legal framework, particularly Law No. 9 of 1998 on Freedom of Expression. The chosen topic is of significant socio-legal importance, as it navigates the delicate balance between citizens' constitutional rights to express opinions and the state's fundamental responsibility to maintain public order and security. The stated aims—to meticulously analyze the governing legal framework and assess Brimob's legal accountability for procedural violations during crowd control—are clear, focused, and directly address a key challenge in democratic governance. The methodology employed, a normative juridical approach, is well-suited for a study of this nature, relying on a comprehensive examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The inclusion of foundational documents such as the 1945 Constitution, specific laws like Law No. 9 of 1998 and Law No. 2 of 2002, alongside internal police regulations, ensures a robust analysis of the relevant legal landscape. The qualitative data analysis, utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches, further supports a deep dive into the legal intricacies. The findings succinctly highlight the inherent tension within Indonesian legal provisions, which simultaneously protect constitutional rights to expression and mandate the maintenance of public order. Crucially, the study elucidates the multi-faceted legal consequences for Brimob personnel and the state in cases of operational violations, ranging from administrative sanctions and criminal liability to state responsibility for human rights violations and compensation claims. A significant strength of this research lies in its direct engagement with accountability mechanisms for state security forces, a critical aspect for reinforcing public trust and upholding the rule of law in a democratic society. The conclusion, which emphasizes the necessity of strengthening accountability mechanisms, supervision, and procedural compliance, offers a constructive and actionable pathway for policy and operational improvements in demonstration management. While the abstract provides a strong overview of the legal dimensions, the full implications of the identified "disparities" could benefit from further exploration into their practical manifestation. Nevertheless, this study provides a valuable legal foundation for understanding the complexities and challenges inherent in managing demonstrations in Indonesia, advocating strongly for practices that are proportional, lawful, and deeply respectful of human rights principles.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.