JAKARTA - The legal team for the defendants, in the case of alleged kidnapping and murder of a bank branch head (kacab) in Jakarta, explicitly asked the panel of judges to cancel the indictment submitted by the Military Auditor II-07 Jakarta.
"The honorable presiding judge or the panel of judges please decide this criminal case by stating that the indictment letter of the Military Audit II-07 Jakarta Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026 which has been submitted by the Military Audit in the trial on April 6, 2026 is null and void and/or declares that according to the law the indictment of the Military Audit II-07 Jakarta cannot be accepted," said the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho Muhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, Antara, Monday, April 13.
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 the continuation of the reading of the note of objection or exception from the defendant, Nugroho considered that the indictment was not in accordance with the law both in form and substance.
In addition to requesting the cancellation of the indictment, the legal team also requested that the costs of the case be charged to the state. In the closing of the exception, they quoted a classic legal adage that emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of the defendant.
"'It is better to free a thousand guilty people than to punish one innocent person', and if the panel of judges thinks otherwise, please make the fairest decision," said Nugroho.
In the description of the exception, the legal team highlighted the substance of the indictment letter which was considered not to meet the requirements as stipulated in the military criminal procedure law.
They assessed that the indictment prepared by the military prosecutor did not elaborate the facts carefully, clearly, and completely.
According to the lawyer, the lack of clarity is seen from the breakdown of the criminal event which is not detailed, especially in associating the actions of the defendants with the elements of the alleged criminal acts.
One of the main highlights was directed at the indictment against defendant 3. In the indictment, it was stated that there was no specific description of the role or involvement of the defendant in the alleged crime.
"There is no explanation whether the person concerned was involved in premeditated murder, joint murder, persecution resulting in death, or deprivation of liberty. This shows that there is an error in determining the legal subject or error in persona," explained Nugroho.
In addition, the lawyer also questioned the process of determining the defendant 3 as a suspect and the defendant.
They assessed that the determination was not based on at least two valid evidence as required by law.
The lawyer referred to the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 which confirms that the designation of a person as a suspect must be supported by at least two valid pieces of evidence.
In this case, they assessed that there was not enough evidence to link Defendant 3 to the alleged crime.
"There is no suspicion of criminal acts committed, there is no connection between the defendant and the case. This process must be professional, transparent, and respect human rights to avoid arbitrariness and can be tested for its involvement," said Nugroho.
The legal team also elaborated at length on the standard for preparing an indictment which should meet the elements of careful, clear, and complete. They cited various literature and legal expert opinions to strengthen the argument.
In the exception it is stated that, careful means that there is no error or deficiency in formulating the indictment, then clear means that the elements of the offense and the defendant's actions are clearly described, while complete means that all elements of the crime are described in full, including time, place, and way of doing it. .
However, according to the lawyer, the three elements were not fulfilled in the indictment submitted. In fact, they said that defendant 3 did not understand the contents of the indictment read at the trial.
This is considered contrary to the basic principles of criminal procedure law which requires the defendant to fully understand the charges addressed to him.
Furthermore, the lawyer also emphasized that the indictment did not meet the provisions of Article 130 paragraph (4) of Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military Justice.
The article states that the indictment must contain a detailed, clear, and complete description of the facts, including the time and place where the crime was committed.
If the provisions are not met, the consequence is that the indictment can be declared null and void.
"Based on these provisions, we believe that this indictment is invalid and must be declared null and void because it does not meet the material requirements," said Nugroho.
For all the objections raised, the legal team hopes that the Military Court of Appeal will grant their exceptions. They ask that the indictment be declared null and void or at least inadmissible.
However, they also left the decision entirely to the panel of judges if they had other considerations, in the hope that the decision taken would uphold justice.
"If the panel of judges thinks otherwise, we ask for the fairest decision," said Nugroho.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
