Military tribunals keep to a pattern

Military tribunals keep to a pattern

From Kompas

As predicted, the military police of the Indonesian Military (TNI), offering various pretexts, has not named Attorney General Lt. Gen. Andi M. Ghalib a suspect in a corruption case, despite the evidence reported to it by Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW). The unclear judicial status of Ghalib reminds us all that cases which go before to the military tribunal always end murkily. It seems this will also be the case of the "investigation" into Ghalib. It conforms to the implementation of the new paradigm adopted by TNI in response to the demands made by the reform drive.

Capt. Khusairi in the slaying of labor activist Marsinah, the Trisakti and Semanggi shootings, Lt. Col. Sri Roso and the "Rose Team" all have something in common: the main substance of the case is distorted into another direction, for example, by deciding that a case is simply a procedural mistake. The military police also made the same statement in Ghalib's case: It is a procedural mistake. If one pays closer attention to this trend, it is clear that TNI prefers to defend itself rather than defending the interest of a wider public (the people, the nation and the state.).

It is clear that TNI has made every effort to protect its "positive image" and is reluctant to find material truth in accordance with the universally applicable general principle of criminal law. This phenomenon shows that in military judicial proceedings -- from the very beginning until the injunction is passed by a military tribunal -- the logic of "unity of command" is more important than the universal principles of the criminal law. A commander or the commander-in-chief of the TNI, who holds supreme command, has a command authority in determining the judicial process from the beginning to the end. It must be understood that the entire matter is the result of a command decision.

EKO BUDISISWANTO

Depok, West Java