A

s our intelligence community is struggling hard to improve itself and provide early and accurate information to the country’s top decision makers in the wake of several incidents of mob violence nationwide and a series of bomb attacks in Jakarta, a severe tug-of-war is occurring at the House of Representatives on the scope of the authority that the nation’s intelligence agencies should have.

Providing intelligence agencies with a legal umbrella is undoubtedly necessary to ensure that they act within the Constitution and the limits of the law.

The problem is that some articles in the government-drafted intelligence bill currently under deliberation at the House are counter to universally recognized human rights principles, such as the presumption of innocence and equality before the law.

People’s traumatic experiences with the nation’s intelligence agencies during Soeharto’s rule are still vividly remembered by many Indonesians. It is understandable that many are still reluctant to give more power to our intelligence bodies.

One key article of the intelligence bill has the potential to ignore human rights and basic legal principles: Granting intelligence agencies authority to intercept private communications, including those on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, in the name of security.

We are of the opinion that granting spy agencies eavesdropping authority — for whatever reason — would violate basic human rights that have only a tentative foothold in Indonesia, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of opinion.

The article that would authorize intelligence agencies to monitor private communications in Indonesia mirrors the scope of the greatly criticized Patriot Act, which was approved by the US Congress and enacted by US president George W. Bush in 2002 in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

We oppose that article and believe that intelligence agencies should be allowed to monitor private communications only after securing court approval — a common legal practice in many parts of the world.

Also controversial are proposed articles authorizing intelligence agencies to arrest and questioning suspects for up to seven days. Again, such actions should only be authorized by a court and intelligence agencies must have sufficient evidence prior to detaining suspects. Failure to secure court approval or obtain evidence runs counter to the principles of presumption of innocence and equality before the law that assure the fair treatment of all Indonesian people, including suspected criminals and terrorists.

Another article that has failed to attract the attention of House lawmakers relates to the organization of the nation’s intelligence community. The article would establish the State Intelligence Coordinating Agency (LKIN), a non-ministerial government body that would directly report to the President.

In our experience, placing the chief of the nation’s top intelligence institution under the direct supervision of the President will lead to abuse in Indonesia. The intelligence community might wind up working for the interests of the president instead of the state.

Deliberation on the bill is underway. There is still ample of time for the country’s lawmakers to carefully and thoroughly study the proposed articles and make necessary adjustments and revisions to make it more legally and constitutionally compliant.

No one can deny that the state needs strong and effective intelligence agencies. But no one can deny that all intelligence activities should be done in accordance with the laws. Sadly, poor and corrupt law enforcement is one of the most dangerous problems in this country.