Constitutional Court Judge Highlights Stalled Reforms in Military Justice System
A Constitutional Court judge highlighted the ongoing nature and direction of the military justice system during a hearing reviewing the Military Justice Law at the Constitutional Court, particularly concerning the unimplemented mandate for legal reforms post-reformasi.
The Constitutional Court judge, Arsul Sani, emphasized that the judicial review of the Military Justice Law cannot be separated from the provisions in Law Number 34 of 2004 concerning the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces), specifically Article 65 in relation to Article 74.
According to Arsul, Article 65 of the TNI Law essentially contains the political and legal spirit to separate judicial authority, both in terms of the subject and object of the case. However, this mandate has not been fully implemented.
“Because these provisions have not been implemented, based on Article 74 of the TNI Law, the current situation remains status quo,” said Arsul during the hearing.
He reminded that efforts to update the system are not new. During the 2004-2009 DPR period, discussions regarding the direction of military justice were almost complete, leaving only two articles that had not been agreed upon between the DPR and the government. However, the continuation of the regulation was then halted.
“This was discussed seriously and was almost complete, but then it seemed to stop and is no longer a priority,” said Arsul.
In this context, Arsul requested an explanation from the DPR and the President’s legal team regarding the future political and legal direction. He questioned whether the mandate of Article 65 would be realized through amendments to the Military Justice Law or would end with a new policy design.
Arsul also mentioned that during the second term of President Joko Widodo’s administration, the Coordinating Ministry for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs (Kemenko Polhukam) formed a legal reform team that provided several recommendations regarding the update of military justice, although limited to specific aspects such as the handling of general criminal offenses.
“What we are asking for is clarity on the future design regarding the Military Justice Law in relation to the mandate of Article 65 of the TNI Law. We also request that the President convey this policy direction to the Court,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Court judge Enny Urbaningsih emphasized the importance of the Court obtaining a more complete picture of the future policy direction of the law-making body, both regarding the norms being tested and other issues developing in public discourse, especially among civil society.
Enny requested additional explanation regarding the background of the formulation of Article 65 and Article 74 in the TNI Law. According to her, understanding the historical context and the initial objectives of the law-making body is important in assessing the sustainability of these norms.
In addition, Enny also highlighted the latest changes to the TNI Law through Law Number 3 of 2025. She noted that Articles 65 and 74 did not undergo any changes in the revision.
“Was there no discussion at all regarding these articles, or was there a discussion but it did not result in changes to the norms, please explain,” said Enny.
She also mentioned information regarding the Draft Law on Military Justice, which is said to have been included in the National Legislative Program (Prolegnas). Enny requested confirmation as well as an explanation of how far the discussion process of the draft law has progressed. (H-2)
The Constitutional Court held a judicial review of the 2026 APBN Law regarding alleged cuts in the education budget due to the inclusion of the Nutritious Food program.
The Constitutional Court held a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government (UU Pemda).
The application of these articles to his client actually violates the constitutional rights of citizens, especially freedom of expression and the right to obtain information.
The follow-up hearing held on Thursday (5/2) completed the agenda of evidence by hearing testimony from the Education Fund Management Agency (LPDP) as a Related Party.
The petitioners in this case questioned Article 47 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the TNI Law, which are considered to potentially reopen the dominance of the military in the civilian sphere.