Legal team asserts that defendant 3 is not the perpetrator in bank branch manager murder case

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The legal team for the defendants has emphasised that defendant 3 has no involvement in the case of the alleged kidnapping and murder of a bank branch head in Jakarta, initialled MIP (37).

“This shows an error in the application of the article to defendant 3, resulting in a misdirection of the legal subject or error in persona,” said the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho Muhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday.

The defendants, namely Serka MN (defendant 1), Kopda FH (defendant 2), and Serka FY (defendant 3), are charged with involvement in the kidnapping accompanied by the murder of MIP.

In the continuation of the trial for the reading of the objection note or exception from the defendant’s side, Nugroho assessed that defendant 3 had no involvement in the case.

The legal team comprehensively outlined several objections to the indictment prepared by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta, Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026 dated 6 April 2026.

According to them, the indictment does not meet legal requirements because it was not prepared meticulously, clearly, and completely as stipulated by the regulations.

The legal team stated that the indictment does not contain a description of facts that specifically explain the role or actions carried out by defendant 3.

In fact, no part of the indictment links defendant 3 to the elements of the charged criminal offence, whether regarding premeditated murder, joint murder, assault resulting in death, or deprivation of liberty.

Furthermore, the legal team assessed that the indictment does not provide a complete picture of the time, place, and manner in which the criminal offence was committed by each defendant.

As a result, defendant 3 is said not to understand the content of the indictment read by the Military Prosecutor in the trial. This, according to the legal team, is evidence that the indictment was drafted obscurely or as an obscure libel.

To strengthen their argumentation, the legal team referred to the opinion of criminal law expert M. Yahya Harahap, who stated that the indictment is the basis and foundation for the judge in examining the case in the trial.

Therefore, the indictment must be formulated clearly and completely so that the defendant can understand the charges against him.

In addition, the legal team quoted the view of A. Soetomo, who emphasised that the indictment must be prepared with meticulousness (cermat), without causing doubt (clear), and containing all necessary elements (complete). If one of these elements is not fulfilled, the indictment has the potential to be declared invalid.

According to the legal team, if linked to the opinions of these experts, the indictment by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta in this case does not meet the required standards.

The indictment is also assessed as not formulating all elements of the criminal offence, not detailing the roles of each defendant, and not explaining concretely how the criminal event occurred.

In addition to questioning the substance of the indictment, the legal team also highlighted the process of designating defendant 3 as a suspect and defendant.

They assessed that the designation was not based on at least two valid pieces of evidence, as required in criminal procedure law.

The legal team referred to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which emphasises that the designation of a suspect must be supported by at least two valid pieces of evidence.

Without fulfilling these requirements, the legal process is deemed deficient and potentially violates principles of justice.

“There is no alleged criminal offence committed by defendant 3, no connection to the case, so the suspect designation process does not comply with legal procedures,” Nugroho asserted firmly.

Furthermore, the legal team referred to the provisions of Article 130 paragraph (4) of Law Number 31 of 1997 on Military Justice, which regulates that the indictment must contain a description of facts meticulously, clearly, and completely, including the time and place of the criminal offence.

In the legal team’s view, these provisions are not fulfilled in the indictment submitted by the Military Prosecutor. Therefore, legally, the indictment must be declared null and void.

“If these requirements are not met, the consequence is that the indictment is null and void,” said Nugroho.

Based on all the explanations, the legal team concluded that the submitted indictment does not meet material requirements. Thus, they requested the Panel of Judges to accept the exception submitted and declare the indictment unacceptable.

The legal team requested that the Panel of Judges accept all objections raised, declare the indictment null and void or at least unacceptable, and burden the costs of the case to the state.

In addition, the legal team also asked the Panel of Judges to consider aspects of substantive justice in deciding this case. They assessed that the purpose of criminal law is not merely to punish, but also to restore balance and provide a sense of justice for all parties.