Family lawyer for bank branch chief's family presses for premeditated murder charge
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The lawyer for the family of the head of a bank branch, identified only as MIP (37), is urging that the defendant in the alleged kidnapping and murder case be charged under the offence of premeditated murder. ‘We remain as in our prior statement: we object to murder alone. In our view this is a case of premeditated murder, so the related provisions on premeditated murder should be applied so that the punishment can be maximised,’ said the family’s lawyer, Marselinus Edwin, during the pledoi (defence) in Jakarta Military Court II-08 on Thursday.
The victim’s family remains convinced that the alleged kidnapping and murder that killed MIP constitutes premeditated murder. Therefore, they are asking the panel of judges to impose the maximum sentence on the defendants. This follows the defendants’ pledoi in the court proceedings, in which they claimed they did not murder or carry the victim’s body.
According to him, the pledoi is the defendants’ legal right. However, the victim’s family maintains that the defendants acted as executors in the case. ‘Please, each party can exercise their rights. But for the family of the victim, we continue to believe this was premeditated murder, in which the defendants were the executors. Therefore we still hope for the maximum punishment for the defendants,’ Edwin said.
Edwin also highlighted new trial facts suggesting the involvement of a senior or other parties who allegedly gave orders in the case. He stated that the family has long believed that the defendants on trial are not the only party responsible. ‘We have said from the outset that the defendants on trial are the executors. Whoever the intellectual actors are, whoever gave the orders, they must also be processed, examined, and investigated,’ Edwin added.
As a legal step, the family plans to file Judicial Review (JR) to the Constitutional Court concerning Article 170(1) of the KUHAP. He claimed the provision creates ambiguity in handling cases involving actors from civil and military components. He argued that the absence of the word ‘wajib’ (mandatory) in the rule makes the process of justice split between civil and military courts, leaving trial facts not fully connected. ‘Procedurally, those involved who are civil and military should be tried in the general court. Now the facts are chopped up. Some are in the general court, others in the military court,’ Edwin said.
Edwin gave an example from the trial where the Military Prosecution summoned two witnesses, Ken and Dwi. However, they did not attend to give testimony for fear that their statements would burden the case in the general court. ‘As a result, there are missing pieces of fact. Why does this happen? Because there is no legal certainty,’ Edwin argued. He said this situation harms the victim’s family by rendering the construction of the case incomplete and potentially affecting the severity of the charges faced by the defendants.
In addition to the JR to the Constitutional Court, the family also plan to send letters to the Judicial Commission (KY) and the Supervisory Board (Bawas) regarding a number of statements raised in the trial, including restitution. ‘We object. We will send letters to KY and Bawas because those statements hurt the victim’s family. This is a matter of empathy,’ Edwin said.
Edwin also asked the public to understand that the defendants are currently charged under Article 338 of the Indonesian Penal Code on ordinary murder, not Article 340 on premeditated murder. He noted that using Article 338 yields a lighter maximum penalty of up to 15 years’ imprisonment, while the Military Prosecutor in the case seeks 12 years. ‘What we hope is for Article 340, premeditated murder, to be applied. That would allow for the maximum penalty, potentially death or life imprisonment,’ Edwin said. He added that while much of the public discourse portrays the case as premeditated murder, the charges in court have used ordinary murder.