Debate in Indonesia over state responsibility vs individual accountability
JAKARTA — A debate is growing in public discussion and on social media:
“Who should go to prison if people who are not paid or facilitated by the state commit legal violations?”
The argument circulating goes like this:
If a citizen commits a mistake because the state did not fulfill its constitutional duties, then the legal responsibility should fall on the government in power at the time.
THE CORE ARGUMENT
Proponents of this view cite The Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, Paragraph 4, which mandates the state to:
1. Protect the entire Indonesian nation and all of Indonesia’s bloodshed
2. Promote public welfare
3. Educate the life of the nation
4. Participate in maintaining world order
From this perspective, when the state fails to provide wages, facilities, education, jobs, or basic welfare, and a citizen then breaks the law, the failure is framed as a “state omission.”
The conclusion in this narrative: “If one person commits an offense, the executing authority responsible for that sector should face legal consequences.”
Example used in discussions:
If unpaid workers protest and damage property, or if poor farmers enter protected forest due to no land access, then according to this view the relevant minister, regional head, or government in office should be the one “executed” legally.
THE LEGAL COUNTER-ARGUMENT
Legal experts and the Indonesian Criminal Code / KUHP take a different position.
Key principles in Indonesian law:
1. Individual responsibility: Article 59 KUHP – A person can only be punished for acts they personally committed.
2. State responsibility: Exists in administrative and constitutional law. Citizens can sue the state through PTUN / State Administrative Court, or report negligence to Ombudsman, Komnas HAM, DPR.
3. Official accountability: Officials can be prosecuted if there is proof of corruption, maladministration, or abuse of power under the Corruption Law, not simply for “policy failure.”
Legal scholars argue that mixing individual crime with state negligence creates a legal vacuum. The solution offered by law is: prosecute the individual for the crime, and separately prosecute the state/official for negligence or corruption if evidence exists.
WHAT WATCHDOGS SAY
Groups like ICW, LBH, and Kontras often say: “The state must be held accountable first, before blaming the victim.”
But they push this through: budget audits, lawsuits against policy, and corruption cases — not by replacing individual criminal liability.
THE BIGGER QUESTION
The debate reflects public frustration over welfare gaps. Data from BPS and Bappenas 2024-2025 still shows issues with: informal workers without social security, agrarian conflict, and access to education/health.
So the real question in public discourse is not just “who goes to jail” but:
“How do we make the state accountable when it fails the mandate of the Preamble?”
—
Context: This article explains a viewpoint circulating in public discussion. It does not endorse any illegal act. In Indonesia, criminal acts are processed through police, prosecutors, and courts based on applicable law.
