On Saturday, March 15, 2025, Commission I of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) held a meeting to discuss the revision of Law No. 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI). The discussion of this bill was conducted discreetly until late at night at the Fairmont Hotel and concluded with a “raid” by the Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for Security Sector Reform. This raid was a form of criticism against the discussion of the law, which lacked public participation, especially since the TNI Law revision contains controversial provisions.
The working committee meeting to discuss the bill, which should have been held openly, was instead conducted behind closed doors without involving civil society elements. Moreover, several tactical vehicles belonging to the Special Forces Command (Kopassus) were deployed to guard the meeting. In terms of timing, the meeting took place over the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) and extended into the night, raising questions about the urgency of amending the TNI Law and the secretive, rushed nature of its discussion. Initially, the TNI Law revision was not even included in the national legislation program list. The government only proposed this amendment through a Presidential Letter, which was later approved at the DPR plenary session on February 18, 2025.
In response to this situation, the Civil Society Coalition, part of the Open Government Partnership Indonesia movement (CSO OGP Indonesia), has urged the DPR and the government to immediately halt the discussion of the TNI Bill, which lacks transparency and active public participation. This demand is based on the following arguments:
First, the Discussion of the TNI Bill Was Conducted in a Closed Manner Without Meaningful Public Participation
The closed discussion of the regulation contradicts the principles of open government. CSO OGP Indonesia regrets this, considering that Indonesia is a member and one of the founders of the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The OGP is a global partnership where each member country commits to institutionalizing collaboration between the government and civil society through co-creation to promote participatory, transparent, accountable, and inclusive governance. In principle, transparency and participation are core values of the OGP. Thus, the process of formulating public policy and drafting legislation must involve meaningful public participation and substantively address the needs and issues faced by society.
The drafting of legislation, including transparency and meaningful public participation, has been regulated under Law No. 13/2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12/2011 on the Formation of Legislation, following the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. This ruling is a landmark decision as it was the first time the Constitutional Court partially granted a petition in the formal review of Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation. The Court declared the law unconstitutional because it did not involve meaningful public participation in its formation. Furthermore, the Court outlined three prerequisites for meaningful public participation in the formation of legislation: the right to be heard, the right to have opinions considered, and the right to receive explanations or responses to the opinions provided.
Therefore, the discussion of the TNI Bill, which did not listen to public opinion, did not consider public input, and provided no explanation to the public, violates the prerequisites for meaningful public participation and constitutes defiance of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia.
Meaningful public participation in lawmaking, as mandated by Law No. 13/2022, includes the stages of drafting and discussion between the DPR and the government, encompassing access to information and oral/written input. This aligns with the principle of openness in Law No. 30/2024 on Government Administration and Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Disclosure. However, the closed, rushed discussion of the TNI Bill, without public access to the draft and without civil society participation, demonstrates a violation of these principles.
Second, the Discussion of the TNI Bill Reflects Tokenism in the Formation of Legislation
Deputy Speaker of the DPR from the Gerindra Party faction, Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, stated in a media interview on March 17, 2025, that the agenda for discussing the TNI Bill had gone through a consignment process or intensive discussion, which is part of the regulated legislative procedure. In reality, the discussion was rushed by the government and DPR in a very short time, conducted behind closed doors, and without meaningful public participation. This pattern is also evident in many recent legislative processes (e.g., the revision of the KPK Law, the Job Creation Law, the revision of the State-Owned Enterprises Law, and now the TNI Law). The preparation of academic papers, consignment processes, and public forums are conducted merely to fulfill procedural requirements. This condition is known as tokenism, where participation is only symbolic, involving a small number of individuals who do not even represent the interests affected by the policy or regulation being drafted. As feared by the public, the outcome of such non-transparent discussions is none other than problematic legal provisions.
Third, the Provisions of the TNI Bill Threaten Civilian Supremacy and Revive the Dual Function of ABRI
In the draft TNI Bill circulating among the public, several provisions were found that, if enacted, would threaten civilian supremacy and revive the dual function of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia (ABRI). One of the most significant provisions relates to the appointment of active TNI soldiers to public positions. Under Article 47 of the TNI Law, TNI soldiers can only hold civilian positions after resigning or retiring from active military service. There are 10 ministries/agencies (K/L) that active soldiers can occupy, including offices overseeing the coordination of political and security affairs, national defense, the President’s military secretary, national intelligence, state cryptography, the National Resilience Institute, the National Defense Council, National Search and Rescue (SAR), the National Narcotics Agency, and the Supreme Court.
However, this provision is amended in the TNI Bill to state that “Active soldiers may hold positions in offices overseeing the coordination of political and security affairs, national defense, the President’s military secretary, national intelligence, state cryptography, the National Resilience Institute, the National Defense Council, National Search and Rescue (SAR), the National Narcotics Agency, and the Supreme Court, as well as other ministries/agencies requiring the manpower and expertise of active soldiers in accordance with Presidential policy.” Another version of the draft indicates that the government and DPR agreed to add six more K/Ls that active TNI soldiers can occupy, namely the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB), the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), the Maritime Security Agency, the Attorney General’s Office, and the National Border Management Agency (BNPP).
The placement of active TNI soldiers in public positions within these K/Ls, as outlined in the TNI Bill, clearly threatens civilian supremacy and revives the dual function of ABRI, which was abolished as part of the 1998 reform agenda. Even the TNI Commander, Agus Subiyanto, in an interview on June 6, 2024, stated that the TNI is no longer performing the dual function of ABRI but rather a “multifunction” role. This statement further reinforces the government’s stance and intent to reintegrate the TNI into civilian spheres. Additionally, the phrase “requiring the manpower and expertise of active soldiers in accordance with Presidential policy” in the amendment to Article 47 of the TNI Bill provides the President with the discretion to appoint active TNI soldiers to civilian positions. Thus, the President can order active TNI soldiers to fill any civilian role based on their wishes, discretion, or policy.
The placement of active TNI soldiers in civilian positions has several significant negative impacts on democracy and civilian space, including:
- Weakening Civilian Supremacy and Reviving the Dual Function of ABRI
The placement of the TNI in civilian roles will resurrect the “dual function of ABRI” concept dominant during the New Order era, where the military had dual roles in defense and civilian affairs. This could weaken civilian supremacy and restore military dominance in public life, contradicting the spirit of reform and democracy. - Undermining TNI Professionalism
Placing the TNI outside its role as a defense instrument is not only inappropriate but will also weaken the TNI’s professionalism. TNI professionalism can only be realized if its placement is focused on national defense duties, not civilian positions far removed from its competencies. - Disruption of Meritocracy
Appointing TNI soldiers to civilian positions can disrupt the meritocracy system within the civilian bureaucracy. This could create unfairness for civil servants who have followed career paths based on established competencies and qualifications. Moreover, TNI professionalism could also be compromised as soldiers meant to focus on defense duties are diverted to civilian tasks. - Dual Loyalty and Conflicts of Interest
Placing active TNI soldiers in civilian roles can create dual loyalty, where they must answer to both civilian and military superiors simultaneously. This situation could lead to conflicts of interest and blur lines of command, ultimately disrupting effective governance and good administration. - Narrowing Civilian Space and Threatening Democracy
Military dominance in civilian positions could shrink civilian space and threaten democratic principles. Military involvement in civilian affairs could reduce public participation in decision-making processes and weaken civilian control over the military, which is essential in a democratic system.
In addition to provisions regarding the appointment of active TNI soldiers to civilian roles, there are several other provisions that could threaten civilian supremacy and revive the dual function of ABRI, including those related to extending the retirement age of soldiers, expanding authority to conduct non-war operations, and the legal jurisdiction of TNI soldiers, who remain subject to military courts for both military and general criminal offenses.
Based on the explanations outlined above, CSO OGP Indonesia urges the DPR and the government to immediately take the following actions:
- Halt the discussion of the TNI Bill and other bills conducted in a non-transparent and non-participatory manner. The bad precedent of closed and rushed legislative discussions is inconsistent with the principles of open government (transparency, accountability, participation, and inclusion), general principles of good governance, and erodes public trust.
- Stop all efforts to revive the dual function of ABRI or place the TNI in civilian positions.
- Cease repressive or intimidating actions and request law enforcement agencies to provide protection to civil society members concerned about the TNI Bill discussion.
List of CSO OGP Indonesia Members:
- Indonesia Judicial Research Society (IJRS)
- International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID)
- Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL)
- Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW)
- Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)
- Transparency International (TI) Indonesia
- Wahana Visi Indonesia (WVI)
- Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia
Contact Persons:
- Gregorius Yoseph Laba (IJRS) – gregoriusyoseph@ijrs.or.id
- Rinto Leonardo Siahaan (INFID) – rinto@infid.org
- Dzatmiati Sari (TII) – dsari@ti.or.id
- Almas Sjafrina (ICW) – almas@antikorupsi.org