P

resident Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo'€™s administration and the House of Representatives have proposed measures in response to the Jan. 14 terror attack in the heart of Jakarta.

In the immediate wake of the attack the government came up with a number of options, but eventually decided to revise the 2003 Terrorism Law to effectively and comprehensively combat the terrorist threat at home. The existing law was enacted over a decade ago in the aftermath of the 2002 Bali bombings.

In general, the government'€™s decision to resort to the legal approach in dealing with the matter is unquestionably the most appropriate choice. By doing so, the government shows its commitment to the universal principle of the supremacy of the law in furthering its antiterrorism campaign.

However, the government has yet to unveil details of the proposals to amend the 2003 law. Bits of those proposals have only been hinted at by a number of Cabinet ministers and the National Police chief Gen. Badrodin Haiti, following an executive-legislative coordination meeting chaired by the President on Tuesday.

Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Luhut Pandjaitan has revealed that the government is seeking to grant the National Police more time to detain suspects for preventive and investigative purposes. He said on Tuesday that the government was also looking into the possibility of giving the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) and/or other security institutions the same powers that the police will have.

Echoing Luhut'€™s statement, Badrodin said the police wanted the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to a month for questioning. He reiterated his support for an amendment to the 2003 law, saying that under the existing law, the police could only monitor people who had returned home from Syria after joining the Islamic State (IS) movement, but lacked the authority to arrest them for further investigation unless they were believed to have committed an actual terrorist offense.

Earlier on Monday, Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly revealed that he had proposed to President Jokowi a number of measures to improve the government'€™s antiterrorism campaign. They included efforts to tighten security and control in penitentiaries, particularly those that house terrorist prisoners, and restrictions on visits to such prisons.

Yasonna'€™s proposals also include giving the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) greater authority to make arrests and strengthening the powers of immigration officials to revoke the passports of people who have gone abroad to fight for IS.

All the revelations and arguments provided by the Cabinet ministers and the police chief are not without good grounds. Yasonna has emphasized that none of the proposed measures are intended to limit people'€™s rights, but are for their own benefit and for the sake of the security of the country. Meanwhile, Cabinet Secretary Pramono Anung said the government had learned from the recent attack that the existing law did not give authorities enough power to take '€œpreventive measures'€ against potential terrorists despite strong indications of their involvement in terrorist activities.

The question is whether the proposed measures are actually what the authorities need.

First, the idea of extending the detention period of terrorist suspects to at least one month for questioning is something of a non-issue. Most citizens, including rights activists, would have little argument with this proposal, as it could be used for thorough investigation and the securing of evidence to build a legal case against suspects. Reasonable concerns, however, might be expressed about the unlawful arrest and questioning of alleged perpetrators, such as the use of torture to extract confession of involvement or interrogation without the accompaniment of lawyers.

Second, the proposal to grant other security institutions the same authority to detain terrorist suspects is against the universal principle of criminal investigation that such power of detention is the exclusive domain of the police. Granting such authority to other institutions will only create complexity of investigation, including when it comes to deciding which institution should be held responsible when abuses occur during the investigation.

In general, the government'€™s concerns, particularly in reference to the terror attack last week, have essentially been accommodated in the existing 2003 law. Any revision, therefore, should not overly change its content.

In regard to the lack of preventive measures on the part of the police '€” and perhaps other security institutions, last week'€™s terror attack had little to do with loopholes in the 2003 Terrorism Law. It came about in many ways as a result of the poor monitoring of terror suspects and a lack of preparation on the part of the security authorities, particularly the police.

Take the case of Afif, aka Sunakim, for instance. He was a convicted terrorist, who had served a jail term but refused to take part in the deradicalization program. He should have been the subject of extra attention by the security services and yet he was able to carry out his act of terror before he was killed in a gunfight with the police.

Another was the revelation by Deputy House Speaker Fahri Hamzah of the lack of foreknowledge by the state'€™s intelligence authorities. As quoted in the media, Fahri said that fellow deputy House Speaker Fadli Zon had communicated with BIN chief Sutiyoso the night before the attack. '€œBut, what I heard from Fadli [Zon] was that Sutiyoso said nothing about any plan by terrorists to launch an attack [on the following day].'€

The point here is that the police '€” as well as other branches of the security apparatus '€” need to improve and increase their vigilance, rather than seeking a major overhaul of the existing law.