Executive Director of Amnesty International Indonesia, Usman Hamid,\nstated that military courts in Indonesia continue to function as\npolitical instruments that protect officials, rather than as independent\nlaw enforcement institutions.<\/p>\n
Military courts have come under scrutiny again following the attack\non human rights activist Andrie Yunus. The case has sparked demands for\nthe allegedly involved officials to be tried in general courts, not\nmilitary ones, to ensure transparency and accountability and prevent\nimpunity.<\/p>\n
Usman explained that the existence of military courts cannot be\nseparated from the context of the birth of the New Order regime, which\nwas supported by military power. He described the regime as a\nmilitary-backed ruler, namely power supported by the military and\nplacing that institution in various sectors, including law, politics,\nand the economy. \u201cIn such a regime, the military becomes first-class\ncitizens with various privileges, including when committing legal\nviolations,\u201d said Usman during a public discussion \u2018Challenging Military\nAccountability\u2019 on Tuesday, 7 April 2026.<\/p>\n
He traced the roots of the problem back to the 1965 Incident, which\nhe said was a momentum for the Army to seize power under the Soeharto\nfaction. During that period, political opposition, especially those\naccused of being involved in the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), were\ntried through military courts. \u201cMilitary courts became political\ninstruments to justify and maintain the regime,\u201d said Usman.<\/p>\n
Experience of the Trisakti Case and Activist Abductions<\/p>\n
Usman revealed his personal experience in 1998, when the Trisakti\nTragedy and the abduction of pro-democracy activists occurred. An\nalumnus of the Faculty of Law at Trisakti University, he said both cases\nwere handled through military courts, which he assessed as not providing\nsubstantive justice.<\/p>\n
In the Trisakti case, according to him, the involved officials were\nonly found to have made procedural errors, not criminal acts that caused\nthe deaths of four students and injuries to dozens. \u201cYet the context was\nopen repression against the student movement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Judicial Mechanism Deemed Failed<\/p>\n
According to Usman, military courts fail to carry out a corrective\nfunction against violations because they tend to protect superiors and\nonly target subordinates. Even in several violence cases, the\nperpetrators are only given administrative or procedural sanctions.<\/p>\n
He assessed that this condition contradicts the principle of equality\nbefore the law as stipulated in the constitution. In addition, Article\n65 of the TNI Law actually affirms that soldiers who commit general\ncriminal offences must be tried in general courts.<\/p>\n
Usman highlighted the existence of transitional provisions in\nregulations that still maintain the old military court jurisdiction,\nnamely the 1997 Law. \u201cThis is what makes military court reform never\ncomplete,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Criticism of the DPR and Constitutional Court<\/p>\n
He also highlighted that the 1997 Military Court Law is still in use,\neven though there are newer regulations such as the 2004 TNI Law and its\nrevision in 2025. According to him, based on the principles of lex\nposterior and lex superior, or newer and higher rules, they should\noverride the old rules. \u201cLogically in law, the 2004 and 2025 rules\ncannot be defeated by the 1997 rule,\u201d said Usman.<\/p>\n
According to him, the DPR has not completed the revision of that law,\nwhile the Constitutional Court has not been firm enough in enforcing the\nprinciple of equality before the law. This condition, said Usman,\nreflects the weak political will of civilian elites in reforming\nmilitary courts.<\/p>\n
Violation of Basic Judicial Principles<\/p>\n
Usman mentioned at least three principles violated in the military\ncourt system. First, equality before the law, because the jurisdiction\nand process differ based on rank. Second, the Commanding Officer\nPunishment Authority (Ankum) mechanism that opens room for command\nintervention. Third, the role of the Case Submitting Officer (Papera)\nwhich can hinder the legal process against high-ranking officers.<\/p>\n
He exemplified cases involving high-ranking officers, which are often\nnot brought to military courts, but to internal forums such as the\nOfficers\u2019 Honour Council.<\/p>\n
Independence and Accountability<\/p>\n
Usman also assessed that the independence of military courts is\ndifficult to realise due to the hierarchical structure within the\nmilitary. He questioned accountability in resolving human rights\nviolation cases through that mechanism. \u201cThere is no human rights\nviolation case that is truly resolved through military courts,\u201d he\nsaid.<\/p>\n
He emphasised that military courts should be limited only to internal\ndisciplinary violations, such as desertion or indiscipline, not for\ngeneral criminal offences.<\/p>\n
Deemed to Hinder Democracy<\/p>\n
Usman assessed the continuation of military courts as a sign that\nIndonesia\u2019s democratic transition is not yet complete. He even mentioned\na tendency towards democratic regression, marked by strong military\nautonomy and compromises between civilian and military elites.<\/p>\n
\u201cMilitary courts still serve as political instruments to avoid\naccountability for crimes,\u201d said Usman. \u201cTherefore, criminal cases\ninvolving the military should be brought to general courts so they can\nbe thoroughly uncovered.\u201d<\/p>\n
Government Response<\/p>\n
In a separate opportunity, Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai\naffirmed that the government cannot intervene in the legal process of\nthe planned attempted murder case against Kontras activist Andrie Yunus,\neither through general or military courts.<\/p>\n
According to Pigai, the principle of separation of powers or trias\npolitica requires the executive to respect the legislative and judicial\npowers. In this context, the government can only affirm if the military\ncourt process is carried out fairly. \u201cA true state must not intervene in\nthe judiciary. We maintain the honour and dignity of the institution,\u201d\nsaid Pigai during a working meeting with Commission XIII of the DPR on\nTuesday, 7 April 2026.<\/p>\n
Currently, Andrie\u2019s case is being handled by<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/amnesty-military-courts-still-serve-as-political-instruments-1775602283", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }