Investigation Handed Over to TNI Military Police Centre: Can the Andrie Yunus Case Be Tried in a General Court?

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Calls for the acid attack case against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus to be investigated through general court mechanisms continue to grow stronger.

Several civil society elements believe that the matter should not be confined to military courts but should be opened more broadly through general courts to uncover all involved parties.

The case itself implicates four military suspects: Captain NDP, Lieutenant SL, Lieutenant BHW, and Sergeant ES.

However, Metro Jaya Police has instead handed over the investigation to the TNI Military Police Centre (Puspom).

The handover was justified by the lack of evidence of civilian involvement in the case.

Albert Aries, a lecturer in military criminal law at the Faculty of Law, Trisakti University, stated that this step is legally understandable, although it has disappointed civil society.

“I can very much understand the disappointment from civil society coalition colleagues regarding the handover of the acid attack investigation against Andrie Yunus to Puspom TNI, on the grounds that the police have not found any civilian involvement in the case up to the point of handover,” Albert told Kompas.com on Wednesday (1/4/2026).

According to him, from the perspective of criminal procedure law, the absence of civilian involvement means this case cannot be handled through the connexity court mechanism.

Connexity courts are a mechanism for handling criminal cases involving perpetrators from both civilian and military elements in a single criminal act, with the investigation and trial process conducted integrally, not separately in two judicial environments.

In this scheme, the case can be tried in general or military courts depending on the dominance of the perpetrators and legal interests, with a joint panel of judges consisting of civilian and military judges, to fully uncover all facts and legal accountability.

“Based on procedural law provisions, without civilian involvement, connexity courts cannot be applied in this case, which would allow military and civilian perpetrators to be tried in general courts,” he said.

Albert explained that as long as there is no civilian involvement, jurisdiction remains with military courts.

“With general courts not yet having the authority to try military personnel, soldiers committing common crimes currently remain under the competence of military courts,” he stated.

First, the readiness of general courts to handle the entire legal process against military subjects, from investigation to trial.

Second, the enactment of a new law to replace Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Justice, as mandated by MPR Decree No. VII/MPR/2000 and the TNI Law.