At the MK Session, the Ministry of Defense Denies that Military Trials are Not Transparent

JAKARTA - The Ministry of Defense (Moeldoko) has denied the argument of the applicant for a test of the material of Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice in the Constitutional Court which states that trials in military courts do not have guarantees of objectivity and transparency.

Director General of Defense Forces of the Ministry of Defense Haris Haryanto in the continuation of case number 260/PUU-XXIII/2025 said that the trial in the military court was supervised by external supervisors.

"The process in the military court is also open, the trial in the military court is monitored and supervised by the Supreme Court Supervisory Board and the Judicial Commission, just like the general court which also receives supervision from both institutions," said Haris when delivering the government statement reported by ANTARA, Thursday, February 12.

According to him, if there are deviations in trials in the military justice system, of course it will be the object of examination by the Bawas MA and KY.

During the trial, the Ministry of Defense denied all the arguments of the applicants, Lenny Damanik and Eva Meliani Br. Pasaribu, among which tested the heart of the Military Justice Law, namely Article 9 paragraph 1.

The Ministry of Defense basically stated that the military justice system was not in conflict with the constitution. It was said that Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Indonesian Constitution had confirmed the position of military justice as one of the judicial environments under the Constitutional Court.

"This confession shows that the constitution-makers from the beginning realized the need for a judicial system as a sub-judicial power of the Constitutional Court for the military," he said.

Unlike the views of the applicants, the Ministry of Defense said that Article 9 of the Military Justice Law, which regulates military courts, has the authority to try crimes committed by soldiers, does not violate the principle of equality before the law.

Haris explained that the article clearly adheres to subjective jurisdiction. This is because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the status of the perpetrator as a soldier, not by the type of criminal act committed.

According to him, the principle of equality before the law does not negate the possibility of differences in legal treatment, as long as it is based on objective, rational, and proportional reasons.

"TNI soldiers have fundamentally different characteristics from civilians, both in terms of tasks, functions, and the value system inherent in them. Thus, the distinction of the court based on the status of military service is not a form of constitutional discrimination, but a justified differentiation," he said.

This matter was filed by Lenny Damanik and Eva Meliani Br. Pasaribu. They tested Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 43 paragraph (3), and Article 127 of Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice.

Lenny is the mother of Michael Hitson Sitanggang (15), a victim of abuse who was killed by Sertu Reza Pahlivi in May 2024; while Eva Pasaribu is the daughter of Rico Sempurna Pasaribu, a journalist who was killed along with his wife, children, and grandchildren because his house was burned after reporting on a gambling business allegedly run by a TNI soldier with the initials Koptu HB.

Lenny and Eva questioned the dominance of military judicial jurisdiction over general courts. In their petition, the applicants said that there had been a difference in the legal position of TNI members with other citizens.

They reasoned that when committing a criminal offense, citizens who are not TNI soldiers are tried in a general court, while TNI members are tried in a military court even though the criminal offense committed is both a general criminal offense.

"The criminal offense violated is the same, namely a general criminal offense, but the jurisdiction of the court that has the authority to try is different, the procedure is different, and the verdict is also very different," the applicants said, quoted from their application file.

In addition, they also reasoned that trials in public courts were held in public, could be attended and directly supervised by all parties, and the verdict could be easily accessed. However, this did not happen in the military court.

"On the contrary, the trial process against TNI members in military courts is carried out in a closed manner, with minimal supervision, and the decision on the case is more difficult to access," the applicants added.

Article 9, paragraph 1, is the heart of the Military Justice Law which regulates military courts with the authority to try criminal acts committed by soldiers.

The applicants specifically questioned the phrase "criminal offense". According to them, the phrase "criminal offense" opens up a wide opportunity for interpretation of the military court's authority.

This condition, according to the applicants, causes the military court to not only be able to try soldiers who commit military crimes and military disciplinary violations, but also to try general crimes such as corruption, traffic, and narcotics.

Therefore, Lenny and Eva asked the Constitutional Court to change the phrase "criminal act" in Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Military Justice Law into "military criminal act".