Achmad Shiva’ul Haq
Asjach
Scholar ID, Sinta ID, Scopus ID, WoSID
Law enforcement is one of the key
indicators of a successful rule of law state. However, in practice, law
enforcement in Indonesia still faces various serious problems, such as
corruption among law enforcement officers, legal discrimination, weak legal certainty,
and low public trust in legal institutions. This condition has given rise to
debates regarding the main factors causing the weakness of law enforcement in
Indonesia. Some scholars argue that the primary problem does not lie in legal
substance or institutional structure, but rather in a weak legal culture (legal
culture), both among society and law enforcement officials.
Lawrence M. Friedman explains that
the legal system consists of three main components: legal structure, legal
substance, and legal culture (Friedman, 1975). Legal structure refers to
institutions and law enforcement apparatus such as the police, the prosecutor’s
office, and the judiciary. Legal substance refers to norms, rules, and
legislation. Legal culture refers to the values, attitudes, awareness, and
behavior of society toward law. According to Friedman, these three components
are interrelated and determine the effectiveness of the legal system.
In the Indonesian context, I argue
that legal culture is indeed a highly determinant factor in law enforcement.
This is because various institutional reforms and new legal regulations often
do not produce significant changes if they are not accompanied by changes in
the legal culture of both society and law enforcement officials. Even
well-designed laws and strong institutions can fail to function effectively if
the legal culture remains permissive toward violations of law, corruption, and
abuse of power.
The phenomenon that most clearly
reflects this problem, in my view, is corruption within the law enforcement
system, particularly cases involving law enforcement officers themselves. One
concrete example is the case of the former Head of the Professional and
Security Division of the Indonesian National Police, Ferdy Sambo, which not
only involved premeditated murder but also included attempts to manipulate
legal processes, destroy evidence, and abuse authority by several law
enforcement officials. This case demonstrates that the problem of law
enforcement in Indonesia is not merely a matter of rules or institutions, but
also concerns the culture of power and the mentality of legal actors.
When analyzed using Friedman’s
framework, substantively Indonesia actually already possesses a relatively
adequate body of regulations related to law enforcement and criminal justice.
Indonesia also has a fairly complete range of law enforcement institutions,
such as the police, the prosecutor’s office, the courts, the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK), and other oversight bodies. Thus, in terms of
structure and substance, the Indonesian legal system is not entirely weak.
However, the main problem lies in
legal culture. In many cases, law enforcement officers use their authority to
protect the interests of certain groups, manipulate legal processes, or seek
personal gain. A culture of patronage, group loyalty, abuse of power, and
pragmatism remains strongly embedded in law enforcement practices in Indonesia.
As a result, law is often applied in a discriminatory manner and loses
legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
In addition, societal legal culture
also contributes to the weakness of law enforcement. In certain situations,
people still tolerate bribery, nepotism, and the resolution of legal issues
through informal channels. Low legal awareness means that society does not
fully treat law as the primary guide in social life. This condition
demonstrates that weak legal culture constitutes a major obstacle to
establishing the rule of law.
This analysis can be reinforced
through Lon Fuller’s theory of legal principles. Fuller argues that a good
legal system must satisfy certain principles in order to qualify as law,
including that law must be applied consistently and there must be congruence
between official action and declared rules, and that laws must be practically
possible to obey and implement (Fuller, 1969).
In cases of manipulation of law
enforcement by officials, the principle of consistency between legal rules and
their implementation is clearly violated. Normatively, law enforcement officers
are obliged to uphold the law in an objective and professional manner. However,
in practice, some officers are involved in legal engineering and abuse of
authority. This condition demonstrates a mismatch between legal norms and the
actions of legal officials. As a result, law loses its internal morality, and
society loses trust in legal institutions.
Another relevant principle proposed
by Fuller is that law must be publicly promulgated and applied clearly, and
must not be subject to arbitrary or manipulative changes. In several law
enforcement cases in Indonesia, legal information is often not transparent, and
enforcement processes are influenced by political interests or power pressures.
This creates legal uncertainty and reinforces the perception that law can be
commodified.
In my view, the problem of legal
culture in Indonesia cannot be resolved merely through the enactment of new
legislation or formal institutional reform. Changes in legal culture require
deeper and more sustainable social transformation. Therefore, law enforcement
reform must be carried out both structurally and culturally.
First, it is necessary to strengthen
the integrity of law enforcement officials through a more transparent and
accountable system of recruitment, education, and supervision. Legal education
should not be oriented solely toward normative technical aspects, but must also
instill professional ethics, legal morality, and social responsibility.
Second, the state needs to strengthen
an anti-corruption culture and public legal awareness through early-stage civic
education. A strong legal culture can only be formed if society develops a
critical awareness of the importance of the rule of law and actively rejects
unlawful practices.
Third, legal reform must promote
transparency and public participation in law enforcement processes. Public
oversight and the role of mass media are essential to prevent abuse of power by
legal authorities.
Fourth, law enforcement must be
carried out consistently and without discrimination so that society perceives
that the law applies equally to everyone. The example set by law enforcement
officers has a significant influence on shaping society’s legal culture.
Thus, legal culture is indeed a
highly determinant factor in the success of law enforcement in Indonesia.
Although legal structure and legal substance are important, they will not
function effectively if the legal culture of both officials and society remains
permissive toward violations of law. An analysis of corruption practices and
manipulation within law enforcement shows that a weak legal culture has caused
law to lose its social legitimacy and moral authority. Therefore, legal reform
in Indonesia must be directed not only toward regulatory and institutional
reform, but also toward a transformation of legal culture that is more ethical,
participatory, and just.
References
Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal
system: A social science perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality
of law (Rev. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum
progresif: Sebuah sintesa hukum Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
Soekanto, S. (2014). Pokok-pokok
sosiologi hukum. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Wignjosoebroto, S. (2013). Hukum
dalam masyarakat: Perkembangan dan masalah. Malang: Setara Press.
Post a Comment