Reject Joining the Kacab Bank Jakarta Case, This is the Military Audit's Reason

JAKARTA - The Military Audit from the Military Audit II-07 Jakarta, Major (Chk) Wasinton Marpaung revealed the reason why his party refused to combine the case files of the defendants in the alleged kidnapping and murder of a branch head (kacab) of a bank in Jakarta.

This was in response to a note of objection (eksepsi) filed by the lawyers for the defendants in a hearing held on Monday, April 13.

"The legal advisor's argument regarding the difference in roles and contributions so that this case is more appropriate if it is split/separated, the case file is not based and must be rejected," Wasinton said in the reading of the defendant's objection response at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, Wednesday, quoted by Antara.

The defendants, namely Serka MN (defendant 1), Kopda FH (defendant 2), and Serka FY (defendant 3) are suspected of being involved in a series of kidnappings accompanied by the murder of MIP.

In his response, Washington assessed the objection regarding the request for a case file separation (splitsing) because it had no legal basis and was actually contrary to the interests of proof.

In criminal procedure law, said Wasinton, the separation of case files or splitting is the discretionary authority of the public prosecutor which is carried out solely for the purpose of proof if necessary.

"Splitsing is not the right of the defendant or legal counsel. Therefore, the separation of the case file cannot be used as an excuse to weaken the indictment," explained Wasinton.

In this case, the Military Audit considers that the proof process can be carried out optimally without the need to separate the case file.

This means that all elements of the alleged criminal act can still be fully proven in one case file.

Furthermore, he emphasized that there was no legal provision requiring cases with more than one defendant to be separated.

Thus, the legal advisor's argument that the splitsing was not carried out made the indictment legally flawed was considered inappropriate.

Washington also explained that combining cases in one file actually provides significant benefits in the judicial process, namely making it easier to prove the connection between the actions of the defendants, so that the series of criminal events can be seen in a complete and comprehensive manner.

In addition, the merger of cases is also considered capable of avoiding the potential for conflicting rulings if the cases are examined separately.

This is considered important to maintain consistency and legal certainty.

"The merger of the defendants' cases in one case file is also in line with the principle of simple, fast, and low-cost justice," said Wasinton.

In terms of proof, the Military Audit Office ensures that all evidence submitted in this case remains valid according to law.

This refers to the provisions of Article 172 paragraph (2) of the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice, which stipulates that the evidence has met the minimum limit of evidence required.

With the fulfillment of these conditions for proof, according to the Military Audit, there is no urgency to separate the cases.

Therefore, his party asked the panel of judges to reject all the objections filed.

Wasinton also expressed his appreciation to the panel of judges for the opportunity to respond to the objection, as well as to the defendant's legal counsel who had presented his arguments.

According to him, the entire process is part of a joint effort to seek material truth in the case being tried.

Previously, the legal team for the defendants in the alleged kidnapping and murder of the bank branch head (kacab) with the initials MIP (37) requested that the case files of the defendants be separated.

"That after we have examined and scrutinized the contents of the Military Audit II-07 Jakarta Letter of Prosecution Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026, that in this case (in casu), it would be more appropriate if it was split or the separation of the case files into several files," said the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho Muhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, Monday (13/4).

He assessed that the merger of cases in one file did not reflect a sense of justice and legal certainty.

This is because there are differences in the roles and contributions of each defendant in the case.

"The difference in the roles of the defendants is very significant, so that the merger of the case does not reflect certainty and a sense of justice," explained Nugroho.