Acid Terror Against Andrie Yunus and the Grim Shadow of Military Justice
The Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya) has transferred the handling of the acid attack case against Andrie Yunus, Deputy Coordinator of KontraS, to the TNI Military Police Centre (Puspom TNI).
Dirreskrimum of Polda Metro Jaya, Kombes Iman Imanuddin, stated that after receiving the report on the incident, they immediately conducted an investigation. Based on the investigation facts, Polda handed over the case to Puspom TNI due to the involvement of TNI members.
Iman claimed that the police also found no involvement of civilians in the incident. The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) criticised Polda Metro Jaya’s step. TAUD member from LBH Jakarta, Fadhil Alfathan, questioned the legal basis for transferring the case to Puspom TNI.
According to him, one of the substances promoted and stipulated in the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is to position Polri investigators as the primary investigators.
He said the transfer of the case is ironic and premature. Fadhil hopes that Commission III will take a crucial role to review the transfer and request that the case be tried through the general court, not the military court.
TAUD wants the case, which allegedly involves 16 people through an intelligence operation, to be handled transparently and accountably.
Meanwhile, TNI stated that four members involved in the case have been designated as suspects and have been detained at the military detention facility of Pomdam Jaya Guntur since 18 March 2026.
The four are NDP, SL, BHW, and ES. NDP holds the rank of captain. Meanwhile, SL and BHW hold the rank of first lieutenant (lettu), and ES holds the rank of second sergeant (serda). All four are assigned to the Detachment Headquarters of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (Denma BAIS).
TNI’s Head of Information Centre (Kapuspen), Mayjen Aulia Dwi Nasrullah, said the article applied to the suspects is the assault article.
He explained that Puspom TNI has requested the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) to examine Andrie and claimed they will carry out law enforcement openly, professionally, and accountably.
Should be tried in general court
Criminal law expert from Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, assessed that the case should be tried in the general court, not the military court.
“Because this is a criminal act carried out in the context of a civilian criminal act against a civilian and not in a military context. That’s my stance,” said Fatahillah when contacted on Wednesday (1/4).
However, he explained that under the current positive legal framework, a case where all perpetrators are from military elements and do not involve civilians can only be processed through the military court.
He referred to several provisions, including the Military Judiciary Law Number 31 of 1997.
“So the military court does not discuss the criminal act, but who committed the criminal act. As long as the one committing the criminal act is purely military, not together with civilians, it can only be tried under the Military Judiciary Law,” he said.
Fatahillah said the TNI Law actually opens room for soldiers who commit criminal acts in the civilian realm to be tried in the general court as regulated in Article 65 of the TNI Law. However, its implementation is hindered by the lack of revision to the Military Judiciary Law.
“Article 65 regulates that if a military criminal act, a criminal act committed by the military, is carried out in the civilian scope, it must be tried in the general court. But Article 74 regulates that to implement Article 65, the Military Judiciary Law must be amended, which to this day has not been amended,” he stated.
He also proposed that the government issue a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to provide legal certainty while ensuring protection for civilians.
“The weakness is that this is all military, under our law it can only be military. That’s why I propose that to create legal certainty and this also ensures civilian freedom, the President should issue a Perppu revising the Military Judiciary Law,” he said.
In agreement, law expert from Universitas Brawijaya, Aan Eko Widiarto, opined that the case should also be tried in the general court because the criminal act committed is not related to the military.
However, he said that in practice, cases involving the military are generally still processed through the military court.
“Assault is not a criminal act related to the defence functions carried out by the military. That’s first. But it seems in various cases, it’s rare or I have never seen the military tried in the general court, always using the military court,” said Aan.