Military Courts and the Epistemology of Justice

An Alternative Perspective on the Case of Violence Against a Civil Activist

Recently, a report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) highlighted the decision of the High Military Court in Jakarta, which reduced the sentences and overturned the dishonorable discharge of two out of four military personnel proven to be involved in the acid attack on human rights activist, Andrie Yunus. The dominant narrative emerging from civil society and human rights activists is the demand for military personnel who commit crimes against civilians to be tried in civilian courts. This criticism is based on the assumption that military courts tend to protect their own corps. However, if we delve deeper into the legal philosophy and the existence of the state apparatus, there is an alternative perspective that needs to be understood in a balanced manner.

Basic Assumptions of State Apparatus Quality

The demand to equate military legal subjects with civilians often ignores one important premise: state apparatuses, especially active-duty military personnel, are not ordinary civilians in the context of their attributes and responsibilities. They are individuals who have gone through rigorous selection processes and extensive training that shape specific physical, psychological, and ideological qualities. The military is trained to operate under a hierarchical chain of command, face extreme pressure, and uphold the doctrine of state defense.

Because they are equipped with the authority to use force and capacities authorized by the state, the decision-making process of a soldier cannot be equated with that of a civilian. When a soldier commits a deviation, the violation is not only seen as an ordinary crime (such as assault) but as a failure to control the special capacity entrusted to them, as well as a violation of the military doctrine itself.

"Civilian courts are designed for the general public with broad free will, while military courts are designed for those whose will has been bound to the chain of command and the soldier's oath."

Military Courts as a Strict Internal Correction Mechanism

Based on these fundamental differences in capacity and obligations, civilian courts in Indonesia are not designed to comprehensively dissect the anatomy of violations committed by military personnel. Trying active-duty soldiers in civilian courts risks reducing the complexity of military doctrine to mere ordinary crimes. This would ignore the essence of the chain of command, potential insubordination, and the specific ethics of the military corps.

Therefore, the existence of military courts is not a shield of impunity, but rather a strict internal legal correction effort. Examinations in military courts are guided by a very strict code of conduct (such as the Sapta Marga, the Soldier's Oath, and the Eight Obligations of the TNI) as well as the Military Penal Code (KUHPM). Military judges have a precise understanding of the boundaries of superior instructions, the psychological dynamics of intelligence units (such as BAIS, where the convicts belonged), and the ability to classify the extent to which an action is a deviant personal initiative or a structural negligence within the chain of command.

Understanding the Logic of the Military Appellate Decision

In the context of the activist Andrie Yunus's case, the decision of the military appellate court to reduce the sentence and overturn the dismissal of the lieutenant and sergeant certainly drew controversy in the public sphere. However, from the perspective of military justice, such a decision is the result of a multi-layered review that not only considers the actus reus (guilty act).

The panel of military judges also considers the soldier's track record of service, the level of role in the crime (whether as the main planner or an executor acting under the pressure of a superior's hierarchical command), and the potential for rehabilitation within the unit. As an instrument of state defense, the military holds the view that if a soldier can still be rehabilitated and returned to the track of discipline without having to revoke their military status, then internal corrective steps are prioritized. Military prison and administrative sanctions (such as delayed promotion or mutation) often carry very severe cultural and hierarchical consequences internally within the TNI, even though they are not directly visible to the civilian public.

Endnotes

Public pressure and international organizations like HRW play a crucial role in demanding transparency and accountability from state institutions. Nevertheless, demanding the assimilation of military jurisdiction into civilian courts without understanding the anatomy of the military profession risks resulting in inaccurate legal handling. Military courts in Indonesia are constructed on the foundation that state apparatuses holding security mandates and trained in combat doctrine require a very specific judgment mechanism.

This mechanism was formed to ensure that the law is enforced not only using the lens of general criminal law but also through an in-depth evaluation of violations of the soldier's oath and code of ethics. From this perspective, the military court is a logical consequence of the burden of responsibility of the TNI apparatus, where internal legal correction guided by military doctrine is the pillar of justice enforcement most suitable to the capacity and characteristics of the perpetrator.