The Case of Andrie Yunus and the Accountability of Justice

The statement by PDI Perjuangan General Chair Megawati Soekarnoputri questioning the military trial in the acid attack case against Kontras activist Andrie Yunus serves as a marker that will test the accountability of justice. Megawati’s remarks reflect astonishment that mirrors a wider unease in the public sphere: why is the acid attack case against a civil activist being brought before a military court? Her comments do not stop at mere momentary observation but open space to revisit the direction of legal practices in a democratic state. Her unease does not arise from a vacuum but from the growing distance felt between formal mechanisms and society’s sense of justice. The Andrie Yunus case presents a factually simple configuration but one with complex implications. The victim is a civilian exercising his constitutional right to voice criticism in the public sphere. The defendants are active soldiers. The judicial forum is placed within the military environment based on the perpetrators’ status. This choice has a basis in positive law through the authority of the military judiciary over TNI personnel as regulated in Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Judiciary. This dividing line is intended to ensure that relations between civilians and the military operate within corridors of accountability aligned with the principles of the rule of law. Such norms are important because they provide direction that not every action by a soldier must always be resolved in the internal military space. Violations of general criminal law are handled through general judicial mechanisms. In this context, the Andrie Yunus case cannot be read merely as an issue of judicial forum. In this case, the criminal act that occurred is not related to military operations or defence functions but touches the civilian realm. The criticism voiced by the victim is part of the democratic rights guaranteed by the constitution. Criticism cannot be positioned as a threat. Criticism should instead be seen as part of the corrective mechanism that maintains the health of national life. The response to criticism, especially if it leads to violence, will always be read as an indicator of the quality of relations between power and society. The way the state responds to situations like this is not only judged by the final verdict but by the entire process accompanying it.