Police Accountability in Handling Anarchic Demonstrations in the Jurisdiction of the East Kalimantan Regional Police Based on the Chief of Police Regulation Number 1 of 2009
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v7i2.11820Keywords:
Anarchic Demonstration, Police Accountability, ProportionalityAbstract
This study examines the accountability of police officers in handling anarchic demonstrations within the jurisdiction of the East Kalimantan Regional Police, with reference to the Regulation of the Chief of the Indonesian National Police (Perkap) Number 1 of 2009 on the Use of Force in Police Actions. The study is grounded in the persistent reality that human rights violations continue to occur as a result of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers during the management of public demonstrations, a practice fundamentally at odds with the principles of legality, proportionality, and necessity. Employing a normative legal research method with a statutory and conceptual approach, this study analyzes the criminal law principles and police law doctrines that govern the criminal liability of state officials. The findings reveal that, although Perkap Number 1 of 2009 provides sufficiently detailed operational guidelines, the practical implementation of the principles of proportionality and necessity remains ineffective, particularly in circumstances where demonstrations escalate into anarchic conduct. Furthermore, the criminal accountability mechanism applicable to police officers who violate existing regulations continues to confront significant structural and cultural obstacles, including institutional solidarity, evidentiary difficulties, and insufficient political will to enforce the principle of equality before the law. Accordingly, this study recommends strengthening regulatory frameworks, enhancing systematic officer training, and establishing independent and accountable oversight mechanisms to guarantee the protection of citizens' constitutional rights.
References
Ali, M., & Setiawan, M. A. (2022). Penal proportionality in environmental legislation of Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.2009167
Archbold, C. A. (2021). Police Accountability in the USA: Gaining Traction or Spinning Wheels? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(3), 1665–1683. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paab033
Baker, J., & Nasrudin, R. (2024). Is Indonesian Police Violence Excessive? The Dynamics of Police Shootings, 2005–2014. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 54(2), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2022.2138773
Boateng, F. D., Pryce, D. K., Dzordzormenyoh, M. K., Hsieh, M.-L., & Cuff, A. (2024). Empirical Examination of Factors that Influence Official Decisions in Criminal Cases Against Police Officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(3), 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-024-09756-w
Brown Coverdale, H. (2025). Putting Proportional Punishment into Perspective. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 19(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09736-5
Brown, D., Onič, T., Novak, S., & Plemenitaš, K. (2024). An absolute shield: Qualified immunity, police misconduct and black lives matter. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 24(1–2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241249674
Cubukcu, S., & Hom, O. (2023). The Effect of Police Accountability Measures on the Repeat Use of Excessive Force by Police Officers. In Police Use of Force (pp. 323–337). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22705-9_16
Engel, R. S., Corsaro, N., Isaza, G. T., & McManus, H. D. (2022). Assessing the impact of de‐escalation training on police behavior: Reducing police use of force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(2), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12574
Farrow, K. (2024). Blame culture: The line between blame and accountability in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paae034
Fitz, L. (2024). A critical analysis on the use of force by law enforcement officials in a correctional setting—an expert witness account. SN Social Sciences, 4(12), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-01013-5
Goldrosen, N. (2025). Police misconduct hearings as legitimacy dialogues. Policing and Society, 35(7), 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2024.2442715
Hatmawan, I. D. (2025). Public Compliance Towards Indonesian National Police (POLRI) Authority in the Midst of a Strained Public-Police Relationship. Jurnal Kriminologi Indonesia, 1(1), 6.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Legal Education Digest, 17(1), 83–119.
Koslicki, I., Morczek, A. L., Posey, B. M., & Kennedy, L. (2026). Weapons present, police absent? An analysis of police behaviour during 2020–2021 left- and right-wing demonstrations. Policing and Society, 36(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2025.2532549
Krajewski, A. T., Worrall, J. L., & Scales, R. M. (2024). Threat Dynamics and Police Use of Force. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 61(6), 900–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278231194711
Majeed, N., Hilal, A., & Khan, A. N. (2023). Doctrinal Research in Law: Meaning, Scope and Methodology. Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), 12(4), 559–563. https://doi.org/10.61506/01.00167
McLean, K., Stoughton, S. W., & Alpert, G. P. (2022). Police Uses of Force in the USA: a Wealth of Theories and a Lack of Evidence. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 6(3–4), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-022-00078-7
Mugari, I., & Obioha, E. E. (2022). Curtailing police discretionary powers: Civil action against the police in Zimbabwe. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2075132
Ngwoke, R. A., Mbano, I. P., & Helynn, O. (2023). A Critical Appraisal of Doctrinal and Non Doctrinal Legal Research Methodologies in Contemporary Times. International Journal of Civil Law and Legal Research, 3(1), 08–17.
Oramas Mora, D., Terrill, W., & Foster, J. (2023). A Decade of Police Use of Deadly Force Research (2011–2020). Homicide Studies, 27(1), 6–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679221123591
Puddister, K. (2023). Oversight and accountability for serious incidents in Canada: Who polices the police? Canadian Public Administration, 66(3), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12538
Rappert, B., Adang, O., De Paepe, J., Dymond, A., Easton, M., & Probert, T. (2023). A Global Lethal Force Monitor: Comparative Opportunities and Challenges. Homicide Studies, 27(1), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679221121146
Schuck, A. M., & Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2024). Women police, legitimacy, and ethics of care. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paae006
Skinner, S. (2024). Enhancing accountability for police use of lethal force: Global monitoring and comparative benchmarking. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad100
Theil, S. (2025). Carefully Tailored: Doctrinal Methods and Empirical Contributions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 45(4), 1047–1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf029
Worden, R. E., Harris, C. J., & Kim, M. (2024). Disciplinary Sanctions for Police Misconduct: An Empirical Analysis of Sanction Severity. Police Quarterly, 27(1), 80–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111231174831
Xu, D. W. (2024). Narrowing the Police Accountability Gap in Civil Rights Prosecutions. Emory Law Journal, 73(4).