The Challenges of Implementing Intelligence-led Policing in

Indonesia

Amira Paripurna and Sarwirini

Police Studies Postgraduate School, Faculty of Law Universitas Airlangga, Dharmawangsa Dlm Selatan,Surabaya,

Indonesia

Keywords: Counterterrorism, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Pre-Crime, Policing.

Abstract: Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is currently considered a most favourable model of policing that may

positively contribute to prevention and reduction of crime, particularly transnational organized crime and

terrorism. ILP works under the framework of collaboration approach to law enforcement, under the basis of

information sharing, police accountability with the enhancement of intelligence activities and the and the

advancement of technology. This paper aims to explore the increasing reliance on the use of intelligence in

countering terrorism in Indonesia. Further, this paper examines how the proactive intelligence and

information sharing has been conceived and the limitations of the implementation that are taking places.

1 INTRODUCTION

The growing number and complexity of criminal

activities such as transnational organized crimes and

terrorism have driven more questions toward police

capacities and capabilities. Since then their

approaches in preventing these crimes are

scrutinized. Regarding this, law enforcement

becomes more concern and aware to the new

challenge that they faced as the result of global

terrorism and various kind of transnational

organized crimes (Boister, 2003; Ransley and

Mazerolle, 2009). They also aware there is growing

need to use intelligence report and analysis in more

realistic and integrated way (Bell and Congram

2013; Innes and Sheptycki 2004).

In responding this new challenge, the level of

cooperation among police officers from different

countries have increased (Derencinovic and Getos

2007; Interpol 2017). For example, police from

different countries conducted joint training programs

which then followed by founding a new

counterterrorism task force team, gathering and

exchange of intelligence, and in cooperation in

intelligence-led counterterrorism operation (Interpol

2017; Paripurna, Indriani and Widiati 2018).

It has been recognized worldwide that until now

there is no country shows the most effective

approach in deal with terrorism. Regarding to this

issue, Intelligence-led policing (ILP) has been

considered as a favourable counterterrorism policing

to address the complexity of preventing terrorism

(McGarrell, Edmund, Freilich and Chermak, 2007).

The main point of ILP framework is a

collaborative approach to law enforcement, which

combines problem-solving policing, information

sharing, police accountability, and the enhancement

of intelligence operations (Ratcliffe, 2008). ILP

emphasize on the practice of information sharing

and collaboration among different units or

organizations and at all levels (ibid).

The ILP concept has its basis in founding that

police were spending too much time responding to

crime and too little time targeting offenders, as a

result there is an urge to increasing employ

intelligence, surveillance and informants to target

major offenders (ibid). At end it may enabling police

to be more effective in proactively fighting crime.

Information sharing is a complex issue to be

implemented and at the same time efficient

counterterrorism is an arduous task. Undoubtedly,

many progresses have been made post 9/11,

however common understanding remains lacking in

counterterrorism about who is doing what.

Therefore, as part of counterterrorism strategy,

special efforts and measures are needed to improve

the level of cooperation and collaboration in law

enforcement and intelligence sharing (Keohane

2005, pp. 30-31; Omand 2005). To be more precise,

664

Paripurna, A. and Sarwirini, .

The Challenges of Implementing Intelligence-led Policing in Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0007549106640667

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School (ICPS 2018), pages 664-667

ISBN: 978-989-758-348-3

either domestic or international level, between law

enforcement and intelligence has been urged to

conduct intelligence sharing (ibid).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of

intelligence, particularly in the context of counter-

terrorism. Further, this paper examines how the

proactive intelligence and information sharing has

been conceived and the limitations of the

implementation that are taking places between

Densus 88 as the main police forces in charge on

counterterrorism and other counterterrorism agency.

It is a qualitative study involved a thorough

review of the extant literature, as well as analysis of

in-depth interviews with key informants at counter-

terrorism and security intelligence agencies. This

study addresses two primary research questions, they

are: 1. How does the role of intelligence at the pre-

crime aspect of counterterrorism; 2. How the

limitations of the use of intelligence led-policing are

taking places?

2 DISCUSSIONS

2.1 The Utilization of Intelligence in

Counterterrorism

In the context of Indonesia, the society has a

tendency to misunderstand how police and counter-

terrorism agencies gather intelligence, operating

from oversimplified stereotypes about secret

operations conducted by secret agencies.

Intelligence is often associated with negative

connotations, envisioning secretive, subversive and

possibly illegal acts by government officials. In

reality, “intelligence provides the knowledge on

which to base decisions and select appropriate

targets for investigation” (UNODC 2011, p.7).

Furthermore, intelligence may also involve a

discovery of reliable information and potential

dangers. In intelligence process, there is a complex

process that include informed judgments about the

state of affairs or even a single fact as well as an

information management and conversion of

information into useful data to support and direct

law enforcement (ibid, p. 10-16).

Whilst, in the context of precrime aspect of

counterterrorism intelligence is paramount

important. The fact has shown that the collaboration

and cooperation between law enforcement and

intelligence agencies has been acknowledged by

many countries, as it brings advantages for

counterterrorism efforts (Omand 2005, p. 115;

Keohane 2005, p. 30-31; Walsh, 2009; Reveron

2008, p.1-13). This benefit has also been realized by

the Indonesian government to support the

intelligence in counterterrorism measures (Paripurna

2017, p. 74).

The Indonesian government takes more serious

concerns to fight against all forms of terrorism

following the Bali Bombings and series of bombings

attack in capital city. Part of counterterrorism

measures, the government emphasized the

importance of efficient cooperation in intelligence

matters. To support this concern, the government

issued policy and regulation to encourage the

sharing of information between the intelligence

community and the law enforcement community,

such as, National Intelligence Law of 2011, the

Presidential Instruction No. 5/2002 Ministry of

Home affairs Decree No. 11/2006.

It is, however, information sharing and the use of

intelligence in criminal proceeding has lifted some

questions on the legal dimensions and has left legal

problems. It is, particularly, when weighted under

the general criminal law procedure (Kitab Undang-

undang Acara Pidana, KUHAP).

The provision on the use of intelligence in

criminal proceeding has lack of specific mechanism

and procedure. Therefore, it is vulnerable to violate

due process of law. Paripurna (2017) in her research

dissertation found that eventhough the law

enforcement and intelligence agencies are

encouraged to collaborate and shared information,

but it is not equipped with mechanism to share

information between them. How the flow of

information from the intelligence community to the

law enforcement community should work is not

clearly defined and regulated.

The function of intelligence within the police

service is to collect information about the activities

of individuals or groups involved in the crime. Its

existence is as an integral part of the main function

of Polri, which perform repressive, preventive and

pre-emptive actions (Ricardo 2010, Paripurna 2017).

In terms of precrime counterterrorism, the

intelligence activity conducted by police authorities

in the framework of countering terrorism has

increased, particularly since the Counterterror Law

granted counterterrorism authority to the police

(Paripurna, 2017). In other words, the precrime

counterterrorism strategy lays significantly on the

activities of law enforcement intelligence. For

example, the work of Densus 88 is mainly focused

on the intelligence process itself. The intelligence

products are created and used for making decisions

about whether to intervene (ibid, p.215).

The Challenges of Implementing Intelligence-led Policing in Indonesia

665

Based on this example it can be seen that

intelligence plays significance role in the precrime

aspect of counterterrorism. In this sense, the priority

and target of policy activity is based on the result of

the intelligence product. Furthermore, intelligence is

utilized for crime analysis in its process of

identifying patterns and relationships between crime

data and other relevant data sources (ibid).

2.2 The Limitation of Implementing

Intelligence-led Policing

Within the police organization, the collaboration,

cooperation, and informant sharing has been

occurred even though in limited ways. More

specifically, the collaboration, cooperation and

information sharing has been occurring at the

strategic level (Paripurna, 2017). For example, a

sharing information meeting forum which initiated

by Densus 88. This forum attended by the

intelligence community, covers criminal

intelligence, custom and border intelligence and

other types of information. In addition, this forum

intended to encourage proactive data and

information sharing, and to give guidelines to or to

direct community intelligence. In this forum, there

are two-fold information sharing, they are, bottom-

up and top-down information sharing (ibid, p.183).

Similarly, the information sharing which

occurred between Densus 88 and security

intelligence services is conducted in limited ways.

The information sharing among Densus 88, BIN and

BAIS have not been well established, and internally

has not been institutionalized (ibid, p. 192-194).

When they shared the information, basically it does

not touch the practical level. The intelligence that

they shared are usually referring to information or

tangible data about personalities and events around

the globe (strategic intelligence).

To overcome the difficulty of interagency

communication, BNPT as the national

counterterrorism agency has made an effort to

facilitate the sharing information forum among

Densus 88, BIN and BAIS. Since BNPT lacks legal

authority, thus BNPT is not able to encourage each

agency to proactively sharing information (ibid).

There are numerous nuances that contribute to

the hurdles of sharing information within police

organization, Densus 88, BIN and BAIS and any

other intelligence communities. The challenging

factors include, the different interpretation of what is

allowed to be shared under the law, the inconsistent

implementation of policy, the absence of policies or

regulations governing coordination mechanisms to

support the appropriate, effective and timely sharing

of both intelligence and sensitive information for

law enforcement (ibid, p. 219-221).

3 CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes that partially the principle of

intelligence-led policing has been applied for

counter-terrorism policing. It is, however the

implementation faces major managerial challenges

especially in defining the separate roles of the

various actors of counterterrorism and in

coordinating their actions.

There are intermingling factors that may

contribute to these challenges, the major one being

rivalry among counterterrorist agencies, the

overlapping of tasks and duties set forth, but not

clearly coordinated in the legislation granting their

formal powers and responsibilities,

The encouragement of counterterrorism agency

to strengthen information sharing efforts is not

equipped with mechanisms or policy guidance on

how to implement the effective and timely sharing

of information.

The lack of guidance and absence of mechanism

or policy guidelines have provoked the division of

staff. In addition, it has caused poor communication

within the intelligence that has tasked for countering

terrorism. Furthermore, the cultural, goal-oriented,

methodological, and operational differences hinder

information sharing among the agencies.

The existence of intelligence is necessary and

needed; however, the oversight mechanism should

be enforced. It is because the method to gather

information very likely to use of highly intrusive

investigating powers without prior judicial

authorization. To avoid abuse of power, their powers

should be strictly defined and separated from the law

enforcement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The data and the analysis of this paper partially was

taken during the dissertation field research. The

dissertation entitles “The Use of Intelligence in

Indonesian Counter-Terrorism Policing”. Thus, the

authors would like to thank and acknowledge the

resource persons in Densus 88, BIN and BNPT.

ICPS 2018 - 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School

666

REFERENCES

Boister, Neil, 2003. ‘Transnational Criminal Law’? EJIL

14, no. 5, pp. 953–976

Bell, Peter, Congram, Mitchell, 2013.” Intelligence-Led

Policing (ILP) as A Strategic Planning Resource in the

Fight against Transnational Organized Crime (TOC)”.

International Journal of Business and Commerce 2,

no.12, pp. 15-28.

Chalk, P., and Rosenau, W., 2004. Confronting “the

Enemy Within” Security Intelligence, the Police, and

Counterterrorism in Four Democracies. RAND

Corporation. Santa Monica.

Derencinovic, Davor, Getos, Ana-Maria, 2007.

“Cooperation of Law Enforcement and Intelligence

Agencies in Prevention and Suppression of

Terrorism’,

European Perspective”. Revue internationale de droit

penal 79, no. 1, pp. 348.

McGarrell F., Edmund, Freilich D. Joshua, Chermak,

Steven, 2007. “Intelligence-Led Policing As a

Framework for Responding to Terrorism”. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice 23, no. 2, pp. 142-158

Field, A., 2009. “The Problems of Intelligence Sharing

Within the UK Intelligence Community,” Review of

International Studies 35.

Gregory, F., 2009.” The Police and the Intelligence

Services-With Special Reference to the Relationship

With MI5”. In the Handbook of Intelligent Policing,

ed. John Grieve, Allyson MacVean, Clive Harfield,

and David Phillips. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Interpol 2017. “ INTERPOL to highlight need for military

to police terrorism data flow at Global Coalition

meeting”. Interpol.int. 11 July viewed 10 August 2018

<https://www.interpol.int/News-and-

media/News/2017/N2017-091 >.

James, A., 2013. Examining Intelligence-Led Policing:

Developments in Research, Policy and Practise.

Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke, UK.

Keohane, Daniel, 2005. The EU and Counter Terrorism

Centre for European Reform. London.

Innes, Martin, Sheptycki, W. E.James, 2004. “From

Detection To Disruption: Intelligence And The

Changing Logic Of Police Crime Control In The

United Kingdom”. International Criminal Justice

Review 14.

Paripurna, A., 2017. The Use of Intelligence in Indonesian

Counterterrorism Policing. Dissertation. University of

Washington. Seattle.

Paripurna, Amira, Indriani, Masitoh, Widiati, E., 2018. “

Implementation of Resolution no. 4/2016 of the ICPO-

INTERPOL Concerning Biometric Data Sharing:

Between Countermeasures Against Terrorist Foreign

Fighters (FTFS) and Protection of the”. Brawijaya

Law Journal 5, no. 1, pp. 117-142.

Privacy of Indonesian CitizensPrajwalita, 2018.

Ransley, Janet, Mazerolle, Lorraine, 2009. “Policing in an

Era of Uncertainty”. Police Practice and Research: an

International Journal 10, no. 4, pp. 365-381.

Ratcliffe, J.H., 2008. “Intelligence Led-Policing.” In

Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis,

edited by Wortley R. and Mazerolle L. Willan

Publishing. Cullompton, Devon

Ratcliffe, J.H., 2011. Intelligence-Led Policing.

Routledge. New York.

Ricardo, Paul, 2010. “Upaya Penanggulangan

Penyalahgunaan Narkoba Oleh Kepolisian (Studi

Kasus Satuan Narkoba Polres Metro Bekasi)”. Jurnal

Kriminologi Indonesia 6, no.3, pp. 232 – 245.

Omand., D. 2005. “Countering International Terrorism:

The Use of Strategy,” Survival 47, no. 4.

Reveron, D., 2008. “Counter Terrorism and Intelligence

Cooperation,” Journal of Global Change and

Governance 1, no.3.

Walsh, J. 2006. Intelligence Sharing in the European

Union: Institutions Are Not Enough. Blackwell

Publishing. Oxford.

The Challenges of Implementing Intelligence-led Policing in Indonesia

667