Trial for bank branch manager murder postponed, legal team challenges indictment

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The continuation hearing of the case involving the alleged kidnapping and murder of a bank branch head (kacab) with initials MIP (37), held today at the Military Court II-08 in Jakarta, has been temporarily postponed. “Thus, following the reading of the exceptions from the defendant’s side, today’s hearing is adjourned,” stated Presiding Judge Colonel Chk Fredy Ferdian Isnartanto during the reading of the defendant’s objection note or exceptions at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday. During the proceedings, Fredy provided a summary of the exceptions’ contents, which had previously been read by the legal advisory team. The defendants are Serka MN (defendant 1), Kopda FH (defendant 2), and Serka FY (defendant 3), accused of involvement in the kidnapping accompanied by the murder of MIP. The panel noted that the core of the legal team’s objections is that the indictment drafted by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta does not meet formal requirements, deemed imprecise, unclear, and incomplete in outlining the criminal events. “Essentially, the legal team’s arguments in their exceptions state that the indictment is imprecise, unclear, and incomplete,” said Fredy. Additionally, the legal team highlighted the absence of specific details regarding the premeditated murder element in the indictment, especially concerning defendant III Serka FY. The determination of suspect status for that defendant was also questioned, as it is considered unsupported by at least two valid pieces of evidence. Based on these reasons, the legal team requested that the panel accept all exceptions from the defendants and declare the indictment null and void or at least unacceptable. They also petitioned for the case costs to be borne by the state. In response, the panel granted the Military Prosecutor the opportunity to provide a reply to the exceptions. However, the Military Prosecutor, represented by Major (Chk) Wasinton Marpaung, requested additional time to prepare the response. “With permission, if allowed, we request time until Wednesday (15/4), as we must first consult with the Head of the Military Prosecutor’s Office (Kaotmil),” said Wasinton. The request was granted by the panel, although the Presiding Judge emphasised his desire for the trial process to proceed quickly given the limited detention period for the defendants. “I want it to be a marathon to make it fast because we only have two months of detention time for the defendants. On the 15th in the morning, hopefully by afternoon we can have an interim decision,” explained Fredy. The panel also outlined scenarios for the continuation of the trial. If the exceptions are rejected, the hearing will proceed with witness examination on 20 April 2026. Conversely, if the exceptions are accepted, the panel will await further steps from the Military Prosecutor, including the possibility of redrafting the indictment. “May the honourable presiding judge or panel decide this criminal case by declaring the indictment from the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026, submitted by the Military Prosecutor in the hearing on 6 April 2026, null and void and or stating that according to the law, the indictment from the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta is unacceptable,” stated the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho Muhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday. In addition to requesting the annulment of the indictment, the legal team also petitioned for the case costs to be borne by the state. In closing the exceptions, they quoted a classic legal adage emphasising the importance of protecting the defendant’s rights. “‘It is better to free a thousand guilty persons than to punish one innocent person’, and if the panel thinks otherwise, we request the fairest possible decision,” said Nugroho. In their exceptions’ elaboration, the legal team highlighted the substance of the indictment, deemed not to meet the requirements as stipulated in military criminal procedure law. According to the legal team, this lack of clarity is evident from the undetailed description of the criminal events, particularly in linking the defendants’ actions to the elements of the charged criminal offences.