Editor – Southeast Asia Analyst.
Indonesia and the Philippines are known to be two of the oldest democratic nations in Southeast Asia. The Philippines began its democratic journey in 1986 after the People Power Revolution ousted former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, while Indonesia transitioned to democracy in 1998 following the fall of Soeharto. Both countries have conducted more than four general elections, and unlike several other ASEAN states, citizens of Indonesia and the Philippines vote directly for their preferred candidates for president, legislators, and local government executives.
However, their democratic conditions are still questioned by multiple non-state actors due to various shortcomings in political participation and civil liberties. When discussing civil liberties, democratic nations are expected to enact laws that protect and strengthen freedom of speech and expression. Yet, both the Philippines and Indonesia have laws considered to be threats to democracy, namely Indonesia’s new Criminal Procedure Code, the Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP), and the Philippines’ Anti-Terrorism Act. The Indonesian KUHAP was created to replace its previous criminal procedure code enacted in 1981, which was believed to be outdated by the Indonesian government. On the other hand, the Anti-Terrorism Act in the Philippines was introduced to enhance the government’s ability to combat terrorism.
The process undertaken by both governments in enacting these laws has been widely viewed as controversial by human rights activists, legal experts, and various groups of citizens. In the case of the Anti-Terror Bill, the law was introduced to replace the Philippines’ previous Human Security Act, which government officials considered vague and ineffective. This prompted legislators to revise and expand the Human Security Act into the Anti-Terrorism Bill, adding several new provisions. However, many Filipinos questioned the urgency behind pushing the bill at such a fast pace with limited debate. Citizens were also shocked when then-President Rodrigo Duterte signed the law immediately despite widespread public protests.
Meanwhile, regarding Indonesia’s KUHAP, activists and citizens have expressed strong concerns about the lack of transparency throughout the drafting process. The public was given limited opportunity to participate in discussions or revisions, even though the KUHAP is a criminal law that directly affects society at large. In addition to the unclear and seemingly rushed enactment process, both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the KUHAP contain provisions that are considered potentially harmful to democratic principles.
There are numerous controversial points reported in both the KUHAP and the Anti-Terror Bill. One example from the KUHAP is Article 13 point 4, which states that “in urgent circumstances, investigators may conduct a search without permission from the head of the district court.” This clause is considered vague because the term “urgent circumstances” is very broad, and the law does not provide a clear definition or specific criteria for what qualifies as urgent.
Meanwhile, Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Republic Act No. 11479) allows authorities to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for up to 24 days before filing charges. These are just two examples among many controversial sections in both laws. The existence of such provisions has caused various groups to feel insecure about the future of democracy in their countries. Concerns revolve around the possibility of police gaining excessive authority in conducting security operations and the increased risk of abuse of power by law enforcement.
The controversies surrounding both Indonesia’s KUHAP and the Philippine Anti-Terror Bills have shown how vulnerable democratic institutions remain in both countries despite the long practice of democracy by both nations throughout history. These laws may be introduced with the goals of modernising legal procedures and strengthening national security, the limited amount of transparency and rushed legislative process raise serious concerns of potential power abuses by governmental institutions. In addition, due to the chances of the expansion of authority throughout both laws , the quality of democracy, specifically the civil liberties condition of both nations, may be highly disrupted.