Judge rejects exceptions, trial in bank branch manager murder case proceeds

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The panel of judges at the Military Court II-08 in Jakarta firmly rejected all objections (exceptions) submitted by the defendants and their legal advisors in the case of the alleged murder of a bank branch manager in Jakarta.

“The panel decides to reject the objections raised by the defendants and the defendants’ legal advisors,” said Chief Judge Colonel Chk Fredy Ferdian Isnartanto during the reading of the interlocutory decision at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Wednesday.

In its ruling, the panel of judges stated that the objections raised were unacceptable and lacked legal basis.

The panel also confirmed that the Military Court II-08 in Jakarta has the authority to try the case.

Consequently, the trial process will proceed to the next stage.

The costs of the case are temporarily suspended until the final decision is issued.

“The panel states that the Military Court II-08 in Jakarta is authorised to try the case of the defendants, the examination of the case will continue, and the costs of the case are suspended until the final decision,” explained Fredy.

In its legal considerations, the panel of judges thoroughly reviewed various points of the objections raised by the legal advisors.

One key issue highlighted was the request to separate the case files of the defendants (splitting).

The panel of judges opined that combining the case files remains relevant and appropriate.

This is because all the acts alleged against the defendants are considered to form a single chain of criminal events that occurred at the same time.

Although each defendant has a different role, the panel assessed that these differences will be clearly revealed in the proof process during the trial through the examination of witnesses.

Furthermore, the panel emphasised that the authority to determine whether cases are combined or separated lies entirely with the Military Prosecutor as the composer of the indictment.

In fact, combining the cases is seen as better reflecting the principles of swift, simple, and low-cost justice, while providing legal certainty for all parties.

Additionally, the panel of judges rejected the legal advisors’ argument that the Military Prosecutor’s indictment was not carefully, clearly, and completely drafted.

According to the panel, the indictment Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026 dated 6 April 2026 has met the formal and material requirements.

The indictment contains the identities of the defendants, a description of the events, and the charged articles clearly.

Regarding the objection that there was an error in the application of articles to the third defendant or an alleged error in persona, the panel of judges deemed it inappropriate to examine this in the exceptions stage.

The assessment of the accuracy of the articles and the roles of each defendant will be proven in the main examination of the case during the trial.

“The indictment contains a careful, clear, and complete description, and is supported by sufficient preliminary evidence,” stated Fredy.

The panel of judges also addressed the legal advisors’ objections regarding the designation of suspects and defendants, particularly for the third defendant who was said to lack sufficient evidence.

In its ruling, the panel stated that the involvement of the defendants is supported by witness statements and meets the formal requirements as outlined in the Military Prosecutor’s indictment.

The panel assessed that the roles of each defendant have been explained in the indictment, while the technical details are contained in the Examination Record of Proceedings (BAP).

Furthermore, the panel viewed that these objections enter the realm of the main case, which should be proven in the trial process, not in the exceptions stage.

For several other objections that essentially repeated the argument that the indictment is unclear and incomplete, the panel of judges chose not to reconsider them.

This is because the substance of these objections is deemed the same as the points previously discussed. Thus, the panel concluded that the indictment complies with the applicable legal framework.