/data/photo/2021/02/28/603b5f50ea3f3.jpg)
Indonesia’s legal landscape is currently defined by a tension between systemic corruption and a public demand for judicial integrity, highlighted by the recent naming of Febrie Adriansyah—Jampidsus Kejagung—as a suspect by Polri. This clash underscores a trend of “sectoral ego” where law enforcement agencies compete for institutional dominance rather than collective justice.
Institutional Conflict: The Case of Febrie Adriansyah
The designation of Febrie Adriansyah as a suspect by Polri serves as a primary example of the current friction within the state’s legal apparatus. According to recent reports, this move is viewed by observers not merely as a legal procedure, but as a manifestation of “adu banteng” (bullfighting) between competing law enforcement agencies.
This dynamic suggests a shift where legal tools are used to protect institutional “korsa” (esprit de corps) rather than to uphold the law as the supreme commander. When agencies prioritize their own standing over the broader judicial ecosystem, the law becomes a “rubber pole”—flexible and bendable based on the interests of the powerful.
Did you know? The term “korsa” refers to a strong sense of loyalty among members of a specific group, which in law enforcement can either foster teamwork or lead to the shielding of colleagues from legitimate prosecution.
The Legacy of Artidjo Alkostar as a Judicial Benchmark
Public dissatisfaction with current trends has led to a resurgence of interest in the career of Artidjo Alkostar, a former hakim agung who retired in 2018. Alkostar is cited as the antithesis of the current “sectoral ego” trend due to his refusal to allow institutional or political affiliations to influence his rulings.
Alkostar’s career spanned from 1976 to 2018, encompassing roles as an academic, lawyer, and hakim agung. He also served as a human rights lawyer in New York for the Human Right Watch Divisi Asia. His record is characterized by a strict adherence to the law, often resulting in harsher penalties for corrupt officials who attempted to leverage their status.
Comparison: Institutional Loyalty vs. Judicial Integrity
The contrast between the current climate and the Alkostar era is stark:
- Current Trend: Law enforcement is often perceived as a tool for oligarchy or a weapon for inter-agency rivalry.
- Alkostar Model: The law functions as the “panglima” (commander), remaining “straight” regardless of the uniform worn by the judge or the status of the defendant.
Future Implications for Indonesia’s Rule of Law
The persistence of corruption within law enforcement agencies suggests that without a systemic shift toward the integrity modeled by figures like Artidjo Alkostar, public trust will continue to erode. The “banal reality” discussed in public spheres—from official discourse to local coffee shops—reflects a society longing for a judiciary that cannot be bought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Febrie Adriansyah?
Febrie Adriansyah is Jampidsus Kejagung who was named a suspect by Polri.
Why is Artidjo Alkostar significant to Indonesian law?
Artidjo Alkostar is remembered as a hakim agung with unwavering integrity who refused bribes and consistently upheld the law against corrupt officials, regardless of their power.
What is “sectoral ego” in law enforcement?
It is the tendency of different law enforcement agencies to prioritize their own institutional prestige and internal loyalty over the collaborative pursuit of justice.
What do you think about the current state of law enforcement in Indonesia? Do you believe the “Alkostar model” is still possible in today’s political climate? Let us know in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into judicial reform.
Worth a look