“ THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDONESIA : STUDENT’S POINT OF VIEW ”

Disusun Oleh:

TIARA DEFARILLA AZ- ZAHWA

190711380

UNIVERSITAS KUTAI KARTANEGARA

FAKULTAS HUKUM

TAHUN AJARAN

2020/2021

INTRODUCTION

All praise and thanks to Allah SWT Allah SWT, for our blessings and grace we still provide
health and strength so that I can complete this paper in good English. I compile this report
based on data that has been arranged in such a way and easily - hopefully this article can be
accepted by teachers and friends too. I realize that there are still many shortcomings, so I
hope there are criticisms and suggestions to readers that are built to perfect English papers.
Hopefully this English writing will add insight to the reader in the future.

Tenggarong, 12 January 2020

Tiara Defarilla Az - Zahwa

CHAPTER I

PREMILINARY

A. Background

As we know, all countries must have regulations and laws, and so does the State of
Indonesia. The State of Indonesia is a State of law, which has legal regulations, which in
nature compels all Indonesian people or people to comply with legal regulations or
policies in Indonesia and even forces foreigners in Indonesian territory to comply with
existing laws. in the State of Indonesia. And the State has also established a law
enforcement body to facilitate the realization of a just and prosperous State. But it cannot
be denied that in our country there are still many mistakes in upholding the law in our
country. And there are still many injustices in implementing the applicable law. However,
it is not wrong in the formulation of law, but one of the negligence of law enforcement
bodies in Indonesia.

As a result of these negligence, there are a lot of legal violations, and legal violators
that should be put on trial and imposed sanctions should be left unchecked. And this is
very bad for the future of this country. Therefore we will discuss what is fair law
enforcement and how law enforcement efforts in our country are to restore or form a state
that has strict laws and is in accordance with applicable laws. Because the problem is a
very serious problem that must be solved, in order to create justice for all the people of
Indonesia. And in upholding the law in Indonesia.

B. Problem Formulation

Ø What is the Importance of the Government's Role in Law Enforcement?

Ø What is the current state of law enforcement in Indonesia?

Ø How do you enforce the law in our country?

C. Purpose

Ø to discuss the factors causing legal injustice and how to deal with problems that occur
in this country.

Ø how the occurrence of legal injustice that develops in society.

 Ø how do we react to it.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

A. Important Role of Government in Law Enforcement

 Before leaving for that question, one thing that must be stated is the importance of
efforts by the government, in addition to the judiciary itself, to do this. There are at least three
reasons there is a need for government policy in law enforcement:

First, the government is fully responsible for managing the territory and its people to
achieve the objectives in the state. For Indonesia itself, the statement of the purpose of the
state has been firmly stated by the founders of the state in the Preamble to the 1945
Constitution, including: protecting the nation and advancing public welfare. Not only the
statement of the purpose of the state of Indonesia, but basically also the initial idea of the
birth of the concept of the state, the government is obliged to guarantee the rights of its
citizens. Indeed, in theory the separation of powers branches of state power regarding law
enforcement are separated in the judiciary. However, the executive branch still has the
responsibility because there is an intersection of authority with the judiciary and legislature in
the context of checks and balances and the need for implementing the rule of law in the
implementation of daily governmental authority.

Second, not only responsibility, the government also has a direct interest in creating
conditions conducive to running its government. Bureaucracy and community services that
are running well, as well as community security. With good law enforcement, stability will
also emerge which will impact the political and economic sectors. It is an oversimplification
to say that law enforcement is only the responsibility and interests of the judiciary.

Third, it is absolutely impossible to forget that there are two other law enforcement
institutions that are under the executive, namely the Police and the Prosecutors' Office. Law
enforcement is not the sole authority of the Supreme Court. In the context of public security
and public order, the Attorney General's Office and the Police are important spearheads for
law enforcement because they are directly related to the community. Meanwhile, in the
context of formal law, the government currently still has a significant voice in law
enforcement. Because, until September 2004, the administrative affairs of the judiciary are
still held by the Department of Justice and Human Rights. Therefore, the Government still
plays an important role in the transfer and promotion of judges, as well as judicial
administration.

The evolution of society into a state organization gave birth to the concept of
the existence of laws to regulate community institutions. Therefore, there is a basic
assumption that certainty in law enforcement will lead to community stability. And indeed, as
long as the law still has a breath of justice, even though it sounds utopian, legal certainty is a
coveted thing. Because through this certainty will create a sense of security for the people.
Certainty that life is protected by the state, its interests are respected, and the ownership it
holds is protected.

Do not stop there. For Indonesia itself, law enforcement is not just a matter of
encouraging political improvement and economic recovery. It must be realized that law
enforcement is precisely the spearhead of the democratization process. The reason is that
through this law enforcement, Indonesia can consistently eradicate corruption that has firmly
rooted in various sectors, consistently implementing the rules of play in the political and
economic fields. With consistent and strict law enforcement, economic recovery and political
order can also be accelerated.

B. Is there a Government Vision in Law Enforcement?

So, what about law enforcement in Indonesia? This question becomes difficult to
answer because the government itself has yet to show a clear commitment to law
enforcement. Until recently, law was often not seen as something important in the process of
democratization. It is often seen as a sector that sustains improvements in other fields such as
politics and economic recovery. As a result, legal reform is often interpreted as making
various laws and regulations needed to implement economic and political improvement plans
rather than improving the law enforcement device itself.

This indication of this symptom can be seen from the birth of various laws in a flash
in the DPR, which was driven by economic recovery plans described by various international
and national institutions while not much was done to improve the performance of the police
and the attorney general's office. There are indeed several initiatives that have been carried
out. For example, repairs in the body of the Indonesian Police to encourage a more
professional Police. This is also the case with studies in order to improve the prosecutors
'office, such as the Governance Audit for the Indonesian Prosecutors' Office conducted by the
Asian Development Bank and Price Waterhouse Coopers Indonesia (Indonesian Attorney
General's Office, 2001).
 Even today, with encouragement and assistance from several institutions, there is a
movement for legal reform carried out by state legal institutions, namely the Supreme Court,
Prosecutors' Office and the Police. However, it should also be noted that most of these
initiatives are encouragement from outside, from civil society and other non-governmental
institutions, both international and domestic. While the government itself does not seem to
have a clear vision regarding law enforcement. Simply stated, the above assumption can be
seen from the lack of political will to show commitment to law enforcement by allowing
several high-class corruptors to roam the community. In fact, the government ranks affected
by indications of corruption are still allowed to hold their positions. In fact, the first step to
show commitment to law enforcement is by consistently accepting decisions, even the court's
suspicion of certain criminal acts, regardless of the final or not of the decision. The reason is
that they are public officials who have political accountability, so legal-formal technical
matters are no longer relevant.

In the field of policy formation, indications that show the above symptoms

can be seen in the matter of planning the formation of government legal policies

the stagnant. During the Abdurrahman Wahid administration, the Commission was formed

National Law is tasked with giving advice to the president in the field of law.

C. Policies the Government Needs to Do in Law Enforcement

To swoop to more concrete talks, there are several things that need to be done by the
government in law enforcement. At the level of legal substance - statutory regulations - the
government needs to encourage the formation of a set of regulations related to law
enforcement with the vision above. For example, the establishment of regulations that require
technical procedures in implementing the principles of transparency and accountability. Also,
the government, as one of the legislators, needs to take the initiative to form laws relating to
the improvement of law enforcement institutions: the Courts, the Prosecutors' Office and the
Police. At the apparatus level, there needs to be policies related to high discipline.
  Not only law enforcement officers directly related to the court but all government
bureaucratic apparatus. Because law enforcement is not only done in court but also a matter
of how to implement the laws and regulations consistently, without collusion, corruption, and
nepotism. In the context of the "culture" of law, the government needs to run a policy in two
directions, namely to himself, in this case the bureaucratic apparatus, and to the people who
use law enforcement services. This culture could be the output of a strong disciplinary
process that fosters a culture of high respect for the law. But in addition, it is also necessary
to do a series of systematic activities to socialize the rights and obligations of citizens, so that
political and legal awareness emerges.

Law Enforcement Budget

Still in the context of government policy, even this law enforcement must be
supported by adequate funding by the government and, more importantly, adequate funding
planning. In the past three years, funding for the legal sector in the State Budget (APBN) has
increased from year to year. However, there are several problems with this budget, as
revealed in the Court Financial Management System Reform Working Paper prepared by the
Supreme Court in collaboration with the Institute for Study and Advocacy for Judicial
Independence (LeIP). In terms of state budget planning and submission, the internal
weaknesses of the court that have been identified include: (i) the absence of objective
parameters and adequate arguments; (ii) non-participatory drafting process; (iii) the
unprofessional conduct of the court; and others (MA, 2003: 53-55). Most "planning" of
government funds for one budget year is not based on comprehensive observations based on
real needs, but instead uses a system of "line item budgeting" using the method of
determining the budget through "incremental" approach (budgeting is only done by
increasing a certain amount of the budget last year or ongoing budget). As a result, in the
implementation of the budget, "habits" appear to spend the budget at the end of the fiscal
year, without regard to the results and quality of the budget used (MA, 2003: 53-55).
The Working Paper formulates a series of very technical recommendations to overcome these
weaknesses. The Working Paper was indeed more intended to prepare administrative and
financial authority that would be transferred from the government to the Supreme Court.
Even so, at least some recommendations which are general in nature and in accordance with
the direction of law enforcement policies, should also be implemented by the government
Urgent Policy
 In the short term, the closest thing the government can do to support law enforcement,
for example, is related to the administrative authority of the court which is still in the hands
of the government until September 2004. Here, the government can play an important role in
disciplining judges suspected of corrupt practices. and collusion. In addition, there needs to
be encouragement in the formation of laws relating to the improvement of court institutions.
As changes in the five laws relating to the integrated justice system (integrated justice
system), namely the Acts on the Principle of Judicial Power, the State Administrative Court
Law, the Supreme Court Law, the General Justice Law, and the Prosecutor's Law. These five
laws are being discussed in the DPR by the Legislature (see www.parlemen.net). To the
extent that its role can be played in the process of discussing these five laws, the government
needs to encourage the improvement of institutions that prioritize clean and independent
courts. Likewise, the plan to formulate a Law on the Judicial Commission that has been
submitted by the Legislative Body of the DPR to the government but has not yet received an
answer.
In the case of corruption, which is certainly closely related to the consistency of law
enforcement, the formation of the Corruption Eradication Commission that is being
implemented must receive serious attention from the government. Likewise, the plan to
establish a Special Corruption Court planned to be formed in June 2004 (see Bappenas,
Blueprint for the Establishment of a Corruption Court). One thing that should never be
forgotten is the role of the government in improving the prosecutors and police institutions
which are clearly under the authority of the government. At the moment the Prosecutor's
Office is preparing a blueprint for the prosecutor's renewal with the assistance of the National
Law Commission. There needs to be a strong political impetus so that the blueprint is well
structured and, more importantly, can be implemented well.

CHAPTER III

CLOSING
A. Conclusion

Ø The government has full responsibility for managing the territory and

its people to achieve their goals in the state.

Ø Not only responsibility, the government also has a direct interest

to create conditions conducive to running his government.

Ø It cannot be forgotten that there are two law enforcement institutions

others under the executive branch, namely the Police and Attorney General's Office

Is there a Government Vision in Law Enforcement

Ø There have been a number of initiatives already undertaken. For example, repairs on

RI Police body to encourage the Police more professional.

Ø Most of these initiatives are encouragement from outside, from civil society and other
non-governmental institutions, both international and domestic.

Policies that Need to Be Done by the Government in Law Enforcement

Ø One thing that should never be forgotten is the role of the government in improving the
prosecutors' and police institutions which are clearly under the authority of the
government.

Ø These government policies must continue to be encouraged so that they have a clearer
vision and are responsive to the real problems in society.

B. Suggestion

I realize this paper still has shortcomings and for the sake of perfecting this paper. So I
need criticism and suggestions that are positive or constructive from the reader and
hopefully this paper is useful for readers.

C. References
Ø  Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
Jayasuriya, Kanishka. “The Rule of Law and Governance in the East Asian State,” Asian
Law Vol. 1, 107.
Ø  Mahkamah  Agung  RI.  Cetak  Biru  Pembaruan  Mahkamah  Agung  RI.  Jakarta:
Mahkamah Agung RI, 2003.
Ø  Kertas Kerja Pembaruan Sistem Pengeloaan Keuangan Pengadilan. Jakarta:
Mahkamah Agung RI, 2003.
Ø  Bagaimana Undang-Undang Dibuat. Seri Panduan Legislasi PSHK. Jakarta:
PSHK, 2003.
Ø  www.pemantauperadilan.com