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 resultsThe constitutional challenge: Addressing the architecture of military impunity
Indonesia’s "architecture of impunity" transforms personal vendettas into institutional shields, allowing military personnel to bypass civilian justice. By exploiting legislative loopholes and expanding into civil governance, the TNI risks dismantling the very constitutional safeguards designed to ensure democratic accountability.
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!
An Indonesian Military (TNI) soldier stands guard on April 16, 2026, next to case files related to the acid attack on Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) deputy coordinator Andrie Yunus at a Military Court in Jakarta. (Antara/Fakhri Hermansyah)
“Personal revenge” is the official motive cited for the acid-attack terrorism allegedly carried out by four Indonesian Military (TNI) personnel against Andrie Yunus, deputy coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras). Because it has been framed as a personal matter, the TNI argues that this act of terror does not represent its official stance.
However, the transfer of Andrie’s case file to a Military Court suggests that the TNI allows individuals to bring personal problems into the institutional realm. This raises a troubling question: How many TNI personnel harbor similar attitudes, attacking civilians for personal reasons while benefiting from institutional impunity?
Investigators from the Military Police said the motive was extracted during the questioning of the four suspects, identified only as Capt. NDP, First Lt. SL, First Lt. BHW and Second Sgt. ES. The four members of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) will be indicted on April 29.
The legal process in the Andrie case clearly sidelines facts obtained through an independent investigation by the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD). The TAUD identified at least 16 alleged perpetrators, with both civilian and military backgrounds, based on CCTV footage showing the group communicating during the critical hours before the March 12 attack. Consequently, the TAUD views the TNI’s rushed legal maneuvering not as an achievement, but as an effort to protect intellectual authors, obscure the facts and avoid public pressure.
In a rule-of-law state, efforts to perpetuate impunity are unacceptable. The 1945 Constitution is explicit: Article 27, paragraph (1) provides that all citizens are equal before the law and the government, and are obliged to uphold both without exception. Impunity directly contradicts the principle that no person or institution is above the law; when violations go unpunished, legal deterrence weakens and further crimes are encouraged.
If impunity remains a problem today, it is because legal provisions like Article 74 of Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI sustain it. This article serves as a transitional rule, stating that until a new law on Military Courts is issued, all violations committed by TNI soldiers will be tried in Military Courts. This significantly undermines Article 65 of the same law, which is intended to divide jurisdiction based on the nature of the conduct: military courts for military crimes, and general courts for ordinary crimes.
The narrow legal formalism embedded within the TNI often decouples the law from moral considerations or public consensus. By prioritizing technical, “black-letter” reasoning, the system produces outcomes that run counter to common sense. This positivist perspective treats the law as a closed system of rules rather than a normative instrument guided by justice in a social context.
