Military justice is one of the efforts to uphold justice and maintain credibility within the military field. The jurisdiction of military justice applies to anyone who is personally a member of the military.
Article 65 Paragraph 2 of the Indonesian National Armed Forces Law stipulates that military personnel are subject to military court jurisdiction for military criminal law violations and civilian court jurisdiction for general criminal law violations governed by law.
This raises questions regarding the limitations of military court authority.
Addressing this issue, the UGM Faculty of Law held a national seminar titled “Absolute Authority of the Military Court in Adjudicating Criminal Acts Committed by Military Personnel” on Monday (October 23).
“We can see the authority of the military court from the existing regulations. Looking at the criminal aspects, the military court has the authority to adjudicate all criminal acts, both military offenses listed in the military penal code and general offenses,” said Dr. Supriyadi, a military criminal law expert at UGM.
“Concerning the perpetrator aspect, it can be determined whether they have a military status. However, the military court also has the right to judge civilians under certain conditions.”
This jurisdictional paradigm changed after the enactment of the People’s Consultative Assembly Decree No. VII/MPR/2000. The regulation states that the military court may only adjudicate military law violations.
However, violations of general law, even if the perpetrator is a member of the military, must be adjudicated by civilian courts. Yet, two conditions must be met before the new rule can be enforced.
First, civilian courts must be ready to conduct a series of investigative processes, prosecutions, and trials in the context of military perpetrators. Second, the rule will only apply if the military court has formed a new law to replace Law No. 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice.
Air Marshal (Ret.) Dr. Sujono explained that the role of the military court is crucial in upholding the credibility and enforcing military law.
When a military member commits a criminal act, be it military or general, and does not face dismissal, they are expected to return to the military with the integrity of the armed forces.
Additionally, the military court and civilian court have different inmate rehabilitation systems. Hence, the military court has a high urgency to adjudicate military crimes and military perpetrators.
“Regarding the legal policy of connectivity, where the perpetrator is civilian and military, this has not been implemented. In the Basarnas case the other day, there was connectivity there. But it was processed separately. The police questioned the civilian, and the military police questioned the military personnel,” said Dr. Sujono.
“However, what emerged in public was the soldier being subject to civilian court if committing a general criminal offense by invoking Article 65. But nobody questioned why only the connectivity in the courts was not implemented.”
He added that this issue emerged because there is an impression that military courts are closed. However, military courts are as open as civilian courts, except in cases involving military and state secrets.
Dr. Sujono also emphasized that the Indonesian National Armed Forces have a significant mandate to be the vanguard in protecting the country.
Therefore, every member of the forces must be dealt with militarily if they commit a criminal act. Thus, the military court must maintain absolute authority over the troops.
Author: Tasya
Photo: ditmil-manado.go.id