Expert: Appeal Ruling in Andrie Yunus Case Creates Impression of Impunity for Soldiers
Trisakti University criminal law expert Abdul Fickar Hadjar has said that a military court ruling which overturned the dismissal of two defendants in the acid attack case against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus, while also reducing their primary sentences, could potentially create an impression of impunity for TNI soldiers.
According to Fickar, the ruling was indeed within the authority of an appellate court. However, he said the decision could still be criticised because the case involved violence against a civilian.
“The High Military Court (MMT) is a second-level or appellate court. Therefore, the MMT has the authority to re-examine trial facts as judex facti and reach different conclusions from the first-level court,” Fickar told Media Indonesia on Sunday (6/9).
Nevertheless, he assessed that the annulment of the additional penalty of dismissal could raise issues from the perspective of public sense of justice. “The MMT ruling that overturned the dismissal is part of the appellate court’s authority. But the ruling can also create an impression of impunity for TNI soldiers, especially when viewed from the public’s sense of justice,” he said.
Fickar also said there needs to be an evaluation of the military court’s authority in handling common criminal offences committed by TNI members. In his view, military courts should ideally only handle criminal offences related to war or specific military interests. “Meanwhile, common criminal offences that have nothing to do with military affairs should be tried in general courts,” he said.
He also stressed that violence committed by state apparatus against civilians outside the battlefield is a serious act, especially if it results in damage to vital parts of the body.
“As state apparatus, committing violence against others outside the battlefield is not merely an ordinary crime. The degree of the crime can become very serious,” Fickar said.
Despite criticising the ruling, Fickar emphasised that differences in rulings between first-level and appellate courts are normal in the justice system. Military prosecutors can still file an appeal to the Supreme Court if they believe there was an error in the application of the law.
“Appellate courts do have the authority to re-examine trial facts. However, military prosecutors still have the right to file an appeal to the Supreme Court if they believe the MMT ruling was wrong or misapplied the law,” he said.
According to Fickar, the tiered legal remedy mechanism is part of the independence of judicial power. “This is a normal judicial mechanism. Differences in assessment between judges can occur. Therefore, there are tiered legal remedies and even dissenting opinions in rulings,” he concluded.