Military Prosecutor Affirms Legality of Designation of Accused 3 in Bank Branch Head Case

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Military Prosecutor from the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta, Mayor (Chk) Wasinton Marpaung, affirmed that the designation of Accused 3 in the alleged kidnapping and murder of a bank branch head in Jakarta was carried out lawfully and in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

“The designation of Accused 3 was not done arbitrarily, but through a lawful legal process supported by sufficient evidence,” Wasinton stated during the hearing on the reading of the defendant’s exception response at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, on Wednesday.

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

During the hearing, the Military Prosecutor expressed appreciation to the panel of judges for the opportunity to respond to all arguments presented by the legal counsel.

One of the main points in the exception was the allegation that the designation of Accused 3 constituted a legal subject error or error in persona.

In response, the Military Prosecutor stated that this argument was unfounded and premature.

He emphasised that the entire process of designating Accused 3 had gone through investigation and inquiry stages in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Justice.

Furthermore, Wasinton noted that in the military justice system, designating someone as a suspect or accused must be based on at least two valid pieces of evidence.

This provision is regulated in Article 172 paragraph (1) of that law, which serves as the legal basis for every law enforcement process in the military environment.

The Military Prosecutor also stressed that the issue of whether or not Accused 3’s involvement in the charged criminal act is not part of the exception’s object.

According to him, this falls within the scope of the main case that must be proven through the evidence stage in the trial.

“Exceptions only concern formal aspects, such as jurisdiction to try and clarity of the indictment. Meanwhile, the case material, including the defendant’s involvement, must be tested in the evidence stage,” Wasinton said.

In his response, the Military Prosecutor also explained that his side had a strong basis for designating Accused 3 as a legal subject.

This basis includes witness statements, documentary evidence, and consistency between the defendants’ statements with the chronology of the criminal events and the evidence collected during the investigation process.

With this foundation, the Military Prosecutor concluded that there was no error in the legal subject designation for Accused 3.

Therefore, the legal counsel’s argument regarding error in persona was deemed to lack strong legal grounds.

“Therefore, we opine that the legal counsel’s objections should be rejected and are unacceptable,” Wasinton stated.

Previously, the defendants’ legal team asserted that Accused 3 had no involvement in the alleged kidnapping and murder of a bank branch head in Jakarta with initials MIP (37).

“This indicates an error in the application of the article to Accused 3, resulting in a mis targeting 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 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday (13/4).

The legal team comprehensively outlined several objections to the indictment prepared by the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta No. Sdak/49/K/III/2026 dated 6 April 2026.

According to them, the indictment does not meet legal requirements because it was not prepared carefully, clearly, and completely as per the regulatory provisions.

The legal counsel stated that the indictment lacks a description of facts that specifically explain the role or actions carried out by Accused 3.

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

Furthermore, the legal counsel assessed that the indictment does not provide a complete picture of the time, place, and manner of the criminal acts committed by each defendant.

This condition is deemed contrary to the basic principles of preparing an indictment, which should contain a detailed description of facts so that it can be understood by the defendant.

As a result, Accused 3 is said not to understand the content of the indictment read by the Military Prosecutor in the hearing. This, according to the legal counsel, is evidence that the indictment was drafted vaguely or obscuur libel.