Jakarta (ANTARA) - The legal team for the defendants has emphasised\nthat defendant 3 has no involvement in the case of the alleged\nkidnapping and murder of a bank branch head in Jakarta, initialled MIP\n(37).<\/p>\n
\u201cThis shows an error in the application of the article to defendant\n3, resulting in a misdirection of the legal subject or error in\npersona,\u201d said the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho\nMuhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on\nMonday.<\/p>\n
The defendants, namely Serka MN (defendant 1), Kopda FH (defendant\n2), and Serka FY (defendant 3), are charged with involvement in the\nkidnapping accompanied by the murder of MIP.<\/p>\n
In the continuation of the trial for the reading of the objection\nnote or exception from the defendant\u2019s side, Nugroho assessed that\ndefendant 3 had no involvement in the case.<\/p>\n
The legal team comprehensively outlined several objections to the\nindictment prepared by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta, Number\nSdak\/49\/K\/III\/2026 dated 6 April 2026.<\/p>\n
According to them, the indictment does not meet legal requirements\nbecause it was not prepared meticulously, clearly, and completely as\nstipulated by the regulations.<\/p>\n
The legal team stated that the indictment does not contain a\ndescription of facts that specifically explain the role or actions\ncarried out by defendant 3.<\/p>\n
In fact, no part of the indictment links defendant 3 to the elements\nof the charged criminal offence, whether regarding premeditated murder,\njoint murder, assault resulting in death, or deprivation of liberty.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the legal team assessed that the indictment does not\nprovide a complete picture of the time, place, and manner in which the\ncriminal offence was committed by each defendant.<\/p>\n
As a result, defendant 3 is said not to understand the content of the\nindictment read by the Military Prosecutor in the trial. This, according\nto the legal team, is evidence that the indictment was drafted obscurely\nor as an obscure libel.<\/p>\n
To strengthen their argumentation, the legal team referred to the\nopinion of criminal law expert M. Yahya Harahap, who stated that the\nindictment is the basis and foundation for the judge in examining the\ncase in the trial.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the indictment must be formulated clearly and completely\nso that the defendant can understand the charges against him.<\/p>\n
In addition, the legal team quoted the view of A. Soetomo, who\nemphasised that the indictment must be prepared with meticulousness\n(cermat), without causing doubt (clear), and containing all necessary\nelements (complete). If one of these elements is not fulfilled, the\nindictment has the potential to be declared invalid.<\/p>\n
According to the legal team, if linked to the opinions of these\nexperts, the indictment by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta in this\ncase does not meet the required standards.<\/p>\n
The indictment is also assessed as not formulating all elements of\nthe criminal offence, not detailing the roles of each defendant, and not\nexplaining concretely how the criminal event occurred.<\/p>\n
In addition to questioning the substance of the indictment, the legal\nteam also highlighted the process of designating defendant 3 as a\nsuspect and defendant.<\/p>\n
They assessed that the designation was not based on at least two\nvalid pieces of evidence, as required in criminal procedure law.<\/p>\n
The legal team referred to the Constitutional Court Decision Number\n21\/PUU-XII\/2014, which emphasises that the designation of a suspect must\nbe supported by at least two valid pieces of evidence.<\/p>\n
Without fulfilling these requirements, the legal process is deemed\ndeficient and potentially violates principles of justice.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no alleged criminal offence committed by defendant 3, no\nconnection to the case, so the suspect designation process does not\ncomply with legal procedures,\u201d Nugroho asserted firmly.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the legal team referred to the provisions of Article 130\nparagraph (4) of Law Number 31 of 1997 on Military Justice, which\nregulates that the indictment must contain a description of facts\nmeticulously, clearly, and completely, including the time and place of\nthe criminal offence.<\/p>\n
In the legal team\u2019s view, these provisions are not fulfilled in the\nindictment submitted by the Military Prosecutor. Therefore, legally, the\nindictment must be declared null and void.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf these requirements are not met, the consequence is that the\nindictment is null and void,\u201d said Nugroho.<\/p>\n
Based on all the explanations, the legal team concluded that the\nsubmitted indictment does not meet material requirements. Thus, they\nrequested the Panel of Judges to accept the exception submitted and\ndeclare the indictment unacceptable.<\/p>\n
The legal team requested that the Panel of Judges accept all\nobjections raised, declare the indictment null and void or at least\nunacceptable, and burden the costs of the case to the state.<\/p>\n
In addition, the legal team also asked the Panel of Judges to\nconsider aspects of substantive justice in deciding this case. They\nassessed that the purpose of criminal law is not merely to punish, but\nalso to restore balance and provide a sense of justice for all\nparties.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/legal-team-asserts-that-defendant-3-is-not-the-perpetrator-in-bank-branch-manager-murder-case-1776063115", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }