Military Justice Reform Must Clarify Jurisdictional Boundaries, Expert Says After Court Ruling

Constitutional Court Grants Two Years, Analyst: Boundaries Between Military and Civilian Jurisdiction Must Be Clarified

Indonesia's Constitutional Court has given lawmakers until October 2028 to revise the country's military justice system, prompting calls from defense experts to clearly delineate jurisdictional boundaries between military and civilian courts.

In Decision Number 260/PUU-XXIII/2025 issued on October 15, 2026, the court declared Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Courts conditionally unconstitutional, finding it incompatible with Article 24(1) guaranteeing an independent judiciary and Article 28D(1) guaranteeing equality before the law in the 1945 Constitution.

Selamat Ginting, a political and defense analyst from Universitas Nasional, told Kompas.com on Friday that the revision must address fundamental issues beyond simply categorizing offenses.

The changes must clarify the definitions of military and common offenses, the jurisdiction limits of military and civilian courts, and ensure the full unification of military justice.

The petition challenging the law was filed by Lenny Damanik and Eva Melina boru Pasaribu, who argued that Article 9, point 1, does not clearly define the authority of military courts to try Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) personnel accused of ordinary criminal offenses.

Under current law, jurisdiction is determined by the status of the accused as a soldier rather than the nature of the offense. This means military personnel accused of ordinary crimes against civilians, such as assault or murder, are tried in military courts rather than civilian ones. The Constitutional Court ordered comprehensive restructuring, including integration of the military justice system under a single authority, the Supreme Court.

If lawmakers fail to complete the revision by the October 2028 deadline, the Military Justice Law will be declared null and void.

Constitutional Framework and Defense Requirements

Ginting emphasized that the revision must account for both constitutional principles and Indonesia's defense architecture.

The issue is not about choosing between the constitution and military interests. Both must be placed within the same constitutional framework.

He pointed to Article 30 of the 1945 Constitution, which assigns defense and security as a shared responsibility through a universal people's defense and security system. Article 30, paragraph (3), specifically designates the TNI, consisting of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as state instruments tasked with defending, protecting, and maintaining the integrity and sovereignty of the state.

According to Ginting, this provision must be read alongside Article 24 on judicial power, Article 27 on equal treatment before the law, and Article 28D on fair legal certainty.

The constitution indeed demands accountability from soldiers in the face of the law. However, it also acknowledges the existence and special function of the TNI within the national defense system.

Therefore, military judicial reform should not just focus on whether a soldier committed a common or military offense, but also how the legal system can ensure justice without undermining defense operational needs.

Long-Standing Reform Efforts

The principle of separating military and civilian jurisdiction has been part of Indonesian law since the People's Consultative Assembly Decree No. VII/MPR/2000 and was subsequently elaborated in Law No. 34 of 2004 on the TNI.

Article 65 of the 2004 TNI Law already stipulates that TNI personnel should be subject to military courts for military criminal offenses and to general courts for general criminal offenses. However, implementation has been postponed by Article 74 pending enactment of a new military justice law, creating a legal paradox that necessitated the Constitutional Court's intervention.

One of the petitioners' key arguments considered by the court was the issue of impunity within the military judicial system, where military courts have been criticized for lacking transparency, independence, and impartiality in prosecuting alleged abuses by military personnel.

Ginting stressed that TNI personnel differ fundamentally from civil state apparatus in terms of service nature and duties.

The constitution recognizes judicial power is implemented by a Supreme Court and subordinate judicial bodies including general courts, religious courts, military tribunals, state administrative courts, and a Constitutional Court.

The two-year timeframe now places pressure on Indonesia's House of Representatives and the government to craft legislation that balances constitutional guarantees of equality and justice with the operational requirements of the armed forces.