Legal Expert Highlights Jurisdictional Conflict Between South Jakarta District Court and Military Court
A pretrial ruling by the South Jakarta District Court (PN Jaksel) has ordered the Metro Jaya Regional Police to continue the investigation into the case of Andrie Yunus, which had already been transferred to the Military Court. This has sparked a debate regarding the boundaries of authority between the general and military judicial systems.
Legal expert Agus Widjability assesses that this situation is a clear example of a jurisdictional clash between the general and military courts, which could potentially lead to dualism in case handling if not resolved through proper legal mechanisms. According to Agus, the primary issue lies in the absolute competence of judicial institutions to examine and adjudicate a case.
“This is a situation of jurisdictional conflict between the general and military courts. When the South Jakarta District Court’s pretrial ruling orders Metro Jaya Police to continue the investigation, while the same case has already been transferred to the Military Court and is awaiting a verdict, a question of authority arises that must be viewed based on applicable laws,” said Agus on Tuesday.
Agus explained that under Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Courts, specifically Article 65, if the defendant is an active TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) soldier, the Military Court holds the authority to examine and adjudicate the case. Meanwhile, Article 1, point 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) stipulates that pretrial proceedings are only authorised to test the legality of arrests, detentions, the cessation of investigations, the cessation of prosecutions, and the legality of suspect designations. Furthermore, Article 82 of the KUHAP emphasises that pretrial rulings are only binding on cases being examined within the general judicial environment.
“Once the case files, suspects, and evidence have been transferred to the Military Prosecutor and the trial begins in the Military Court, the jurisdiction of the general court has, in principle, ended. In such conditions, the District Court no longer has the authority to order investigators to continue the investigation process for a case that has become the jurisdiction of the military court,” he explained.
Furthermore, Agus asserted that in terms of judicial hierarchy and competence, the South Jakarta District Court’s pretrial ruling cannot cancel or halt the ongoing process in the Military Court. He noted that this relates to the principle of absolute competence and the principle of ne bis in idem, which prevents the same case from being examined repeatedly by different institutions.
“The Military Court holds an equal position to the District Court but possesses special authority over active TNI members. Therefore, the South Jakarta District Court does not have the authority to order the Military Prosecutor or military judges to stop or alter the ongoing process,” he said.
He added that the order to Metro Jaya Police to continue the investigation lacks executory force against the Military Court. “At most, that ruling can serve as consideration for the Military Prosecutor, but it is not binding and does not have to be followed,” he noted.
Agus warned of the risk of conflicting verdicts if the case continues through two different channels. If the Military Court eventually issues an acquittal while the pretrial ruling states the investigation must continue, two substantively contradictory rulings will emerge. “In such a condition, the ruling with legal force regarding the substance of the case remains the Military Court’s decision, as that court is the one authorised to adjudicate the substance,” he emphasised.
Additionally, there is a risk of dual investigations if Metro Jaya Police proceed with the investigation into the same legal event. “If the investigation continues for the same event, two legal processes will emerge for a single case. This potentially contradicts the principle of ne bis in idem as recognised in criminal procedural law,” said Agus.
From the defendant’s perspective, Agus believes this situation could serve as grounds for an objection or exception in the military trial. He identified three possible reasons why the South Jakarta District Court issued the ruling: first, the pretrial judges may not have been informed that the case files were completed and transferred; second, there may be administrative issues where the police have not formally issued a Letter of Cessation of Investigation (SP3); and third, there may be legal efforts by the complainant to return the case to the general court by arguing the alleged crime is a general offence rather than one under military jurisdiction. However, Agus noted that disputes over such authority should be resolved through the Supreme Court, not via pretrial proceedings.