Jakarta \u2014 The House of Representatives has stated it is inappropriate\nto characterise the military justice system as a space for impunity,\ncontrary to claims made by petitioners challenging the Military Court\nLaw (Law No.\u00a031 of 1997) at the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn its application, the military justice system is not appropriately\ndescribed as a space for impunity,\u201d said Anggota Komisi III DPR RI\nAbdullah during the House\u2019s statement at the continued hearing of case\nnumber 260\/PUU-XXIII\/2025 at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
Abdullah, who appeared virtually at the proceedings, stated that in\npractice, the military courts have not hesitated to punish guilty\nservice members. He cited Decision No.\u00a050-K\/PM.1-04\/AD\/V\/2025, in which\nthe judicial panel sentenced the defendant to death and dismissal from\nmilitary service.<\/p>\n
Beyond exercising judicial authority within the military sphere, the\nmilitary courts are said to serve a coaching function. Abdullah noted\nthat within military discipline, the military courts function to develop\ndisciplined, responsible, morally upright, and professional service\nmembers through an educational legal process that corrects behaviour and\nmaintains military honour.<\/p>\n
He explained that the Military Court Law was established based on the\nunderstanding that military life has special procedures related to\nspecific military principles, necessitating a special mechanism to\nadjudicate cases involving military service.<\/p>\n
Abdullah clarified that in criminal law, two models of jurisdiction\nexist: subjective and objective. Subjective jurisdiction is based on the\nstatus of the perpetrator, whilst objective jurisdiction is based on the\ntype or nature of the criminal act.<\/p>\n
He emphasised Article 9 of the Military Court Law, which stipulates\nthat military courts have authority to try criminal acts committed by\nservice members, including general criminal offences, as a form of\nsubjective jurisdiction. \u201cArticle 9 of Law 31\/1997 adopts subjective\njurisdiction because judicial authority is determined by the status of\nthe perpetrator as a service member, not by the type of criminal act\ncommitted,\u201d he stated.<\/p>\n
The case was filed by Lenny Damanik and Eva Meliani Br. Pasaribu, who\nare challenging Article 9(1), Article 43(3), and Article 127 of the 1997\nMilitary Court Law. Lenny is the mother of Michael Hitson Sitanggang\n(15), who was beaten to death by Sergeant Reza Pahlivi in May 2024. Eva\nPasaribu is the daughter of Rico Sempurna Pasaribu, a journalist who\ndied along with his wife, child, and grandchild after his house was\nburned following his reporting on a gambling operation allegedly run by\na military officer.<\/p>\n
The petitioners argue that when committing criminal offences,\nnon-military citizens are tried in civilian courts, whilst military\nmembers are tried in military courts despite committing the same general\ncriminal offences. They further contend that civilian court proceedings\nare open, observable, and monitored, with accessible verdicts, whereas\nmilitary court proceedings are closed, minimally supervised, and\nverdicts are difficult to access.<\/p>\n
In their petition, Lenny and Eva request that the Constitutional\nCourt change the phrase \u201ccriminal act\u201d in Article 9(1) of the Military\nCourt Law to \u201cmilitary criminal act\u201d. They argue that the broader phrase\n\u201ccriminal act\u201d allows wide interpretation of military court\njurisdiction, enabling military courts to try not only military offences\nand disciplinary violations but also general criminal offences.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/parliamentary-house-military-justice-system-not-immunity-shelter-1772013027", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }