Indonesian Military Counterterrorism Regulation Faces Continued Public Scrutiny

A draft presidential regulation regarding the Indonesian National Armed Forces’ (TNI) role in counterterrorism remains under government review following sustained criticism from civil society organizations. The proposed decree, which outlines military responsibilities in prevention, enforcement, and recovery, has drawn warnings from rights groups concerned about potential institutional overreach and the erosion of civilian-led security frameworks. State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi confirmed in late 2024 that the regulation is still being deliberated, urging stakeholders to avoid premature conclusions as the government weighs the military’s operational scope against established police mandates.

Why the Draft Regulation Faces Opposition

The Civil Society Coalition for Security Reform, a network representing 21 organizations including Imparsial and the Indonesian chapter of Amnesty International, argues that the current draft lacks precise definitions. Critics contend that granting the military broad authority for “miscellaneous” intelligence and territorial operations creates unnecessary friction with the National Police (Polri). According to the coalition’s public statements, the lack of clear boundaries risks creating dual-authority structures that could undermine the specialized counterterrorism capabilities of the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) and the police’s Special Detachment 88 (Densus 88).

Historical Evolution of TNI’s Counterterrorism Role

The military’s involvement in counterterrorism has shifted significantly since the early 2000s. Following the 2002 Bali Bombings, the police relied on TNI intelligence infrastructure due to resource gaps. By 2010, the military’s role expanded into policy influence through the BNPT, where senior positions in deradicalization departments were frequently held by military officers. The legal landscape changed definitively with the 2018 Anti-Terrorism Law, which formally recognized counterterrorism as a “Military Operation Other Than War.” However, Article 43I(3) of that law requires a separate presidential regulation to define the specific limits of that mandate—a document that has remained in draft form for seven years.

Operational Precedents: Tinombala vs. Camar Maleo

Operational outcomes have varied based on the level of coordination between the TNI and police. During Operation Camar Maleo (2015), uncoordinated military “combat exercises” in Poso, Central Sulawesi, reportedly disrupted police intelligence efforts by scattering extremist targets prematurely. Conversely, the subsequent Operation Tinombala utilized a clearer division of labor: the TNI leveraged its specialized jungle warfare training to track militants in mountainous terrain, while the police managed urban logistical networks. This collaborative model is widely cited by security analysts as the most effective framework for joint operations, as it allows each agency to play to its institutional strengths.

Proposed Safeguards for Future Regulations

Security policy experts suggest that any future regulation governing the military must include three structural safeguards to maintain public trust and operational efficacy:

• Defined Threat Thresholds: Military involvement should be restricted to high-threat environments where police capabilities are clearly insufficient, preventing the mission creep of defense forces into domestic policing.
• Mandatory Coordination Protocols: Regulations must mandate joint command structures that prevent independent military initiatives from compromising ongoing police intelligence gathering.
• External Oversight Mechanisms: To address human rights concerns, deployments should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and independent monitoring to ensure accountability and prevent the misuse of anti-terror mandates against civil protesters.

Status of Indonesian Counterterrorism

Indonesia has maintained a “zero attack” status for four consecutive years as of 2024, a milestone often attributed to the professionalization of police-led kinetic operations and community-based deradicalization programs. While the military has provided essential support in specific tactical scenarios, the debate remains centered on whether formalizing a broader military mandate will enhance this stability or create new institutional rivalries that jeopardize long-term security gains.