Military Prosecutor Rejects Exception, States Indictment Against Bank Branch Head Suspects is Complete

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Military Prosecutor from the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta, Major (Chk) Wasinton Marpaung, has rejected the note of objection (exception) submitted by the legal counsel for the defendants in the alleged kidnapping and murder case of a bank branch head in Jakarta.

Wasinton stated that the indictment against the three defendants has been drafted clearly and completely.

“Allow us to express our thanks for the opportunity given by the Presiding Judge to respond to the exception presented by the defendants’ legal counsel. The counsel’s arguments are unfounded and unreasonable, and therefore must be rejected,” Wasinton said during the hearing for reading the response to the defendants’ exception at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, on Wednesday.

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

In one of their exceptions, the defendants’ legal counsel raised several objections, including stating that the Military Prosecutor’s indictment is not meticulous, unclear, and incomplete, known as the term obscure libel.

In response, the Military Prosecutor firmly rejected the arguments presented by the legal counsel, particularly regarding allegations that the indictment does not meet formal requirements.

According to the Military Prosecutor, the drafting of the indictment refers to the provisions of Article 130 paragraph (2) of Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Justice, which stipulates that the indictment must contain complete identities of the defendants as well as a meticulous, clear, and complete description of the acts.

“In this case, we have included the complete identities of the defendants and clearly described the time and place of the incident, including the role of each defendant,” Wasinton explained.

He also clarified that the meaning of “meticulous, clear, and complete” in an indictment does not need to include all proof details, but rather sufficiently depicts the criminal event, elements of the offence, and the connection of the defendants’ acts.

Furthermore, the Military Prosecutor assessed that the substance of the drafted indictment has wholly described the acts charged against the defendants.

Therefore, the legal counsel’s objection stating the indictment is vague is deemed to lack strong legal basis.

“The substance of the indictment has wholly described the charged acts, so the legal counsel’s argument that the indictment is unclear is mistaken and unreasonable,” Wasinton stated.

On that basis, the Military Prosecutor requested the panel of judges to reject the exception submitted by the defendants’ legal counsel and to proceed with the examination of the case to the next stage.

With this response, the trial will enter the stage of the panel of judges determining their stance on the submitted exception before proceeding to the main examination of the case.

Previously, the defendants’ legal team firmly requested the panel of judges to annul the indictment submitted by the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta.

“The Honourable Presiding Judge or panel of judges is kindly requested to decide this criminal case by declaring the indictment of the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026, which was presented by the Military Prosecutor in the trial on 6 April 2026, null and void, or stating that according to the law, the indictment of the Military Prosecutor’s Office II-07 Jakarta is unacceptable,” 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).

In the continuation hearing for reading the note of objection or exception from the defendants’ side, Nugroho assessed that the indictment does not comply with the law both formally and substantively.

In addition to requesting the annulment of the indictment, the legal team also requested that the case costs be borne by the state.

In their exception description, the legal team highlighted the substance of the indictment, which they deemed does not meet the requirements as regulated in military criminal procedure law.

They assessed that the indictment drafted by the military prosecutor does not describe the facts meticulously, clearly, and completely.

According to the legal counsel, this lack of clarity is evident from the description of the criminal event that is not detailed, particularly in linking the defendants’ acts with the elements of the charged criminal offence.

One main focus was directed at the indictment against defendant 3. In the indictment, it is stated that there is no specific description regarding the role or involvement of that defendant in the charged criminal act.

Additionally, the legal counsel questioned the process of designating defendant 3 as a suspect and defendant.

They assessed that the designation is not based on at least two valid pieces of evidence as required by law.

The legal counsel referred to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014, which affirms that designating someone as a suspect must be supported by at least two valid pieces of evidence.

Details of the Indictment

Another Military Prosecutor, Major (Chk) Wasinton Marpaung, stated that in this case, the three soldiers who are defendants are Serka MN (defendant 1), Kopda FH (defendant 2), and Serka FY (defendant 3).

The three are alleged to have been jointly involved in a series of actions from kidnapping to the murder of victim MIP.

For the first defendant Serka MN, the prosecutor drafted layered charges. In the first charge, MN is charged under Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) first of the Criminal Code as the primary charge. This article regulates premeditated murder committed jointly.

As an alternative, Serka MN is also charged under Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) first of the Criminal Code as subsidiary, and Article 351 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) first of the Criminal Code as more subsidiary.

“In addition, there is an alternative charge under Article 333 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code on deprivation of liberty causing death,” Wasinton said.

Not only that, MN is also subject to a cumulative charge under Article 181 K