Indonesia, West Papua – On 15 October 2026, Indonesia's Constitutional Court delivered Decision No. 260/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Law No. 31/1997 on the Military Judiciary. The Court declared the Act conditionally inconsistent with Article 24(1) and Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Those provisions guarantee an independent judiciary and equality before the law. The case was brought by two petitioners, Mr Lenny Damanik and Mrs Eva Melina Br. Pasaribu, through judicial review of the Act.
The Act remains unconstitutional unless the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government amend it within two years of the ruling, that is by October 2028. The amendments must clarify the distinction between military offences and general criminal offences, define which court has jurisdiction over cases involving personnel of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), and reform the military justice system as a whole.
The ruling is significant. Under the current Act, jurisdiction follows the status of the accused rather than the nature of the offence. Military personnel accused of an ordinary crime against a civilian, such as assault or murder, is tried by a military court, not a civilian one.
Why it matters for West Papua
In the Papuan provinces, the military justice system has repeatedly failed victims of violence allegedly committed by military personnel. The Papuan Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHAM Papua), which provides legal aid and human rights advocacy across the region, says the people of Papua face persistent difficulty in establishing the facts, holding perpetrators accountable and securing redress when military personnel are the alleged perpetrators.
In a press release issued in Jayapura on 16 October 2026 (No. 05/SP-PAHAM.Papua/X/JPR/2026), PAHAM Papua pointed to cases from its own casework that illustrate the pattern. PAHAM Papua's conclusion from these cases is that the military courts are not a sufficient forum for enforcing the law. Law enforcement processes must guarantee effective investigation, independent prosecution, public and independent trials, and accountable judgements. In practice, military proceedings have delivered none of these reliably, leaving families waiting for truth and accountability that rarely comes.
The Court's decision directly addresses a core driver of impunity in West Papua, where military personnel accused of human rights violations are processed under military jurisdiction, regardless of the crime and the status of victims as civilians.
What must happen next?
A ruling on paper changes nothing for victims unless the Indonesian Parliament (DPR RI) and the Government act within the deadline. PAHAM Papua has set out what the reform must contain and what institutions must do to make it real:
1. Amend the Act promptly. Jurisdiction must be determined by the nature of the offence and clear legal provisions, not by the perpetrator's status as a soldier. General crimes allegedly committed by TNI personnel against civilians must be tried in the ordinary courts.
2. Regulate joint jurisdiction and disputes. Rules for cases that straddle military and civilian jurisdiction, and for resolving disputes over which court is competent, must be clear so that they cannot be used to stall prosecutions.
3. Prepare the ordinary courts. Judges, prosecutors, investigators and legal advisers need the capacity to handle cases involving armed personnel. Witness and victim protection and the management of evidence must be strengthened.
4. End impunity. No one should be shielded from criminal liability by rank, position or institution. PAHAM Papua frames this not as hostility to the TNI but as a precondition for a professional defence force and public trust in the rule of law.
5. Put victims and families at the centre. They are entitled to information on their cases, legal aid, protection from intimidation and appropriate redress.
6. Give Papua particular attention. Every allegation of violence by the authorities resulting in death, injury, torture or violations of civilians' rights must be investigated seriously, without discrimination or interference.
PAHAM Papua adds that where military violence amounts to crimes against humanity, meaning widespread or systematic attacks on civilians carried out through state policy, the chain of command or the complicity of those in authority, it must be handled under Indonesia's human rights court framework rather than as an ordinary criminal matter.
The Constitutional Court has given Indonesia a legal mandate to combat impunity and strengthen the rule of law. Whether it leads to change depends on what the DPR and the Government do before October 2028, and on whether the ordinary courts are ready when cases arrive. Legal certainty, judicial independence, transparency and accountability would strengthen, not weaken, the TNI's professionalism and public trust in state institutions.