TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsNew legal paradigm demands an end to impunity
The transfer of Andrie Yunus’s acid attack case to a military court threatens to shield perpetrators behind a "wall of impunity." To uphold the rule of law, Indonesia must prioritize civilian jurisdiction and establish an independent fact-finding team.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
A human rights activist affiliated with the Justice for Victims Solidarity Network holds a poster on April 2, 2026, during the 902nd “Kamisan” protest across from the State Palace in Jakarta. The demonstrators urged the formation of a joint fact-finding team to uncover the details of the acid attack on activist Andrie Yunus. (JP /Iqro Rinaldi)
D
uring a hearing convened by House of Representatives Commission III, the director of general criminal investigation of the Jakarta Police, Sr. Comr. Iman Imanuddin, disclosed that the investigation into the acid attack against Andrie Yunus, deputy coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras), had been transferred to military investigators.
This development is both startling and regressive, as it risks establishing a formidable "wall of impunity" should the adjudication proceed within a military tribunal. Kontras, which was also invited to the hearing, has consistently advocated, and will continue to do so, for the act of terror and attempted murder against Andrie to be resolved through the criminal justice system.
This demand is well-founded. Primarily, it is supported by a normative framework stating that the basis for criminal prosecution must be determined by the nature of the act (genus delicti), rather than the status of the perpetrator (subjectum delicti).
This principle is fundamentally aligned with the principle of equality before the law as mandated in Article 27 of the Constitution. More specific provisions are outlined in Article 3 of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree No. VII/MPR/2000, which explicitly stipulates that Indonesian Military (TNI) personnel are subject to TNI courts only for military-specific infractions, such as desertion, while general criminal offenses fall under civilian jurisdiction.
Although this is codified in Article 65 of the 2004 TNI Law (updated in 2025), implementation remains paralyzed by transitional provisions in Article 74. This legislative stagnation has allowed the outdated 1997 Military Tribunals Law to persist for over two decades, effectively shielding TNI personnel from civilian accountability.
Furthermore, this jurisdictional issue clashes with the profound philosophical shift occurring in Indonesian criminal law. Moving away from a colonial-era retributive focus, the new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) embrace a restorative paradigm that prioritizes victim protection.
As criminologist Howard Zehr argues, modern justice should shift from asking "what the offender deserves" to "what the harms and needs of the victim are". In the context of the attack on Andrie, a military tribunal, which traditionally views victims as peripheral witnesses, is ill-equipped to facilitate the transparency required by this modern approach.
