Andrie Yunus Requests to Join as Interested Party in Challenge to Military Judiciary Law at Constitutional Court

Andrie Yunus, a victim of an acid attack by soldiers and Deputy Coordinator of KontraS, has submitted an application to join as an interested party in case number 260/PUU-XXIII/2025, which concerns the material review of Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Judiciary at the Constitutional Court (MK). The application was filed with assistance from the Advocacy Team for Security Sector Reform. “This application is submitted for and on behalf of, and representing Andrie Yunus, a citizen who became a victim of violence allegedly committed by members of TNI’s BAIS,” stated Fadhil Alfathan, legal counsel from the Advocacy Team for Security Sector Reform, in a written statement on Monday (13/4) evening. He emphasised that this case concerns not only Andrie’s individual interests as a victim but also a collective effort by civilian victims of TNI soldier violence to uphold the principle of equality before the law and substantively advance security sector reform. In addition to being a victim of violence, Andrie is known as an activist, human rights defender, and public lawyer who has been actively involved in assisting victims of human rights violations, advocating human rights issues, and reforming the security sector. Fadhil stated that the acid attack incident experienced by Andrie constitutes a general criminal offence. However, the handling of the case has been directed towards military court jurisdiction. According to him, this situation reveals a fundamental issue in the construction of military judiciary law in Indonesia, particularly regarding Article 9(1) of the Military Judiciary Law, which uses the phrase “criminal offence” without distinguishing between military criminal offences and general criminal offences. According to his side, this norm’s ambiguity has opened the door to excessive expansion of military court jurisdiction. “As a result, soldiers who commit general crimes are still tried in military forums, not in more independent and open general courts,” Fadhil said. “This approach fundamentally contradicts the concept of a rule-of-law state that guarantees equality for every citizen before the law,” he added. In fact, Fadhil continued, Article 65(2) of the TNI Law has explicitly regulated the separation of judicial regimes. Military members who commit general criminal offences should be tried in general courts, while military courts are limited to military-specific criminal offences. Fadhil said this norm inconsistency not only creates legal conflicts but also directly impacts the obstruction of justice access for victims. Due to this legal construction, Andrie has experienced or at least potentially faces constitutional harm in the form of the loss of guarantees for legal certainty that is fair, legal protection, and equal treatment before the law as guaranteed in Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution. “Through this application, the Advocacy Team for Security Sector Reform requests that the Constitutional Court declare the phrase ‘criminal offence’ in Article 9(1) of the Military Judiciary Law to be contrary to the 1945 Indonesian Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as ‘military criminal offence’,” Fadhil said. In the first hearing at the MK on Thursday, 8 January 2025, the Applicants, represented by their counsel Ibnu Syamsul Hidayat, asserted that the impunity of soldiers contradicts the rule-of-law principle and equality before the law. The Applicants also highlighted broader consequences, namely the weakening of civilian supremacy in a democratic governance system. The dominance of military court jurisdiction over general courts is deemed contrary to the principle of a constitutional democratic state that places civilian power above military power. According to the Applicants, this dual jurisdiction stems from the provisions of Article 9(1) of the Military Judiciary Law, which gives special status to active TNI soldiers to be tried exclusively in military courts, even for general criminal offences. This regulation is considered potentially to breed impunity and violate the principle of equality before the law. “The phrase ‘adjudicating criminal offences’ in Article 9(1) of Law No. 31 of 1997 opens up opportunities and a broad basis for interpretation of military court authority, not only to try soldiers or those equivalent to soldiers for military criminal offences and military discipline violations, but also to adjudicate other criminal cases such as corruption, traffic, domestic violence, narcotics, psychotropics, and child protection,” stated Ibnu, quoted from the MK website.