{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1687052,
        "msgid": "parliament-reveals-reasons-why-andrie-yunus-case-cannot-be-brought-to-general-court-1776603047",
        "date": "2026-04-19 18:31:08",
        "title": "Parliament Reveals Reasons Why Andrie Yunus Case Cannot Be Brought to General Court",
        "author": "",
        "source": "CNN_ID",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "The Indonesian House of Representatives has explained why the acid attack case against KontraS Vice Coordinator Andrie Yunus will be tried in the Military Court II-08 Jakarta instead of the general court, citing conflicts between the 1997 Military Judiciary Law and the 2004 TNI Law. This stems from the absolute jurisdiction principle, which keeps military personnel under military courts for all crimes, rendering civilian court provisions ineffective due to the lack of a revised military judiciary law. The case highlights ongoing reform issues in the security sector and calls for limiting military jurisdiction to military-specific offences to uphold equality before the law.",
        "content": "<p>Member of Commission I of the House of Representatives, Yulius\nSetiarto, has revealed the reasons why the acid attack case against Vice\nCoordinator of KontraS, Andrie Yunus, cannot be brought to the general\ncourt. The Military Court II-08 Jakarta will hold the first hearing of\nthe case on 29 April, despite calls from various parties to move the\nprocess to the general court. Yulius explained that the legal polemic in\nthis case stems from a norm conflict between Law No.\u00a031 of 1997 on\nMilitary Judiciary and Law No.\u00a034 of 2004 on the TNI. According to him,\nthe Military Judiciary Law still adheres to the principle of absolute\njurisdiction based on the legal subject, where every soldier is subject\nto the military court regardless of the type of criminal offence. \u201cThis\nconstruction creates a form of legal exceptionalism that separates the\nmilitary from the general judicial system,\u201d Yulius stated when contacted\non Sunday (19\/4). Although Article 65 of the TNI Law explicitly\nstipulates that active TNI soldiers are subject to the general court in\ngeneral criminal cases, that provision has never been effectively\nimplemented because it is hindered by Article 74 of the Military\nJudiciary Law, which requires the establishment of a new Military\nJudiciary Law as a prerequisite for implementation. \u201cAs a result, for\nmore than two decades, that provision has become a kind of dead letter,\nand the prevailing practice still places soldiers committing civilian\ncrimes under the military court,\u201d he said. Article 65 of the TNI Law\nstates, \u201cSoldiers are subject to military judicial authority in cases of\nmilitary criminal law violations and subject to general judicial\nauthority in cases of general criminal law violations as regulated by\nlaw.\u201d However, based on Article 74 of the Military Judiciary Law, the\nprovisions of Article 65 only apply after a new law on Military\nJudiciary is revised. Article 74 of the Military Judiciary Law generally\nregulates the authority of Ankum (Superior with Punitive Authority),\nwhich includes investigation, receiving reports, receiving case files,\nand detention of subordinate soldiers. \u201cThis situation shows the lack of\nstrong political will from the House of Representatives and the\nGovernment to resolve the security sector reform agenda, particularly in\nthe military judiciary aspect. Even the latest TNI Law revision does not\ntouch on this issue, so the dual jurisdiction remains maintained without\na clear solution,\u201d he said. Yulius acknowledged that, from a\nconstitutional perspective, the dominance of the military court in\nhandling general criminal offences contradicts the principle of equality\nbefore the law as guaranteed in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945\nConstitution. Because when perpetrators are tried in a different system\nfrom civilians, while the victim comes from the general public, there is\npotential for power imbalance in the relationship. Therefore, Yulius\nurges a clear boundary between the authority of the military court and\nthe general court. According to him, the jurisdiction of the military\ncourt should be strictly limited only to criminal offences directly\nrelated to military functions, duties, and discipline. \u201cThe Andrie Yunus\ncase becomes an important momentum to conduct a comprehensive evaluation\nof the existing system, while also pushing for the acceleration of the\nrevision of the Military Judiciary Law to align with the spirit of\nreform and the rule of law,\u201d he said.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/parliament-reveals-reasons-why-andrie-yunus-case-cannot-be-brought-to-general-court-1776603047",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}