Muhammad Yahya Ihyarozza, Jakarta – "Personal revenge" is the official motive cited for the acid-attack terrorism allegedly carried out by four Indonesian Military (TNI) personnel against Andrie Yunus, deputy coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras). Because it has been framed as a personal matter, the TNI argues that this act of terror does not represent its official stance.
However, the transfer of Andrie's case file to a Military Court suggests that the TNI allows individuals to bring personal problems into the institutional realm. This raises a troubling question: How many TNI personnel harbor similar attitudes, attacking civilians for personal reasons while benefiting from institutional impunity?
Investigators from the Military Police said the motive was extracted during the questioning of the four suspects, identified only as Capt. NDP, First Lt. SL, First Lt. BHW and Second Sgt. ES. The four members of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) will be indicted on April 29.
The legal process in the Andrie case clearly sidelines facts obtained through an independent investigation by the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD). The TAUD identified at least 16 alleged perpetrators, with both civilian and military backgrounds, based on CCTV footage showing the group communicating during the critical hours before the March 12 attack. Consequently, the TAUD views the TNI's rushed legal maneuvering not as an achievement, but as an effort to protect intellectual authors, obscure the facts and avoid public pressure.
In a rule-of-law state, efforts to perpetuate impunity are unacceptable. The 1945 Constitution is explicit: Article 27, paragraph (1) provides that all citizens are equal before the law and the government, and are obliged to uphold both without exception. Impunity directly contradicts the principle that no person or institution is above the law; when violations go unpunished, legal deterrence weakens and further crimes are encouraged.
If impunity remains a problem today, it is because legal provisions like Article 74 of Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI sustain it. This article serves as a transitional rule, stating that until a new law on Military Courts is issued, all violations committed by TNI soldiers will be tried in Military Courts. This significantly undermines Article 65 of the same law, which is intended to divide jurisdiction based on the nature of the conduct: military courts for military crimes, and general courts for ordinary crimes.
The narrow legal formalism embedded within the TNI often decouples the law from moral considerations or public consensus. By prioritizing technical, "black-letter" reasoning, the system produces outcomes that run counter to common sense. This positivist perspective treats the law as a closed system of rules rather than a normative instrument guided by justice in a social context.
The consequences are predictable: military operational patterns used against civilians culminate in legal immunity for the perpetrators. Under international humanitarian law, civilians are protected even in wartime; in peacetime, such harm is even less justifiable. Furthermore, impunity sustains inequality. While powerful actors are shielded, marginalized groups bear the brunt of injustice, resulting in a systematic abuse of human rights.
Impunity must end because it contradicts the foundational principles of democracy. Power should not be exercised through weapons, but through public reasoning and accountability. While the military is effective against external threats, it becomes deeply problematic when it enters civilian spaces that require transparency and participation.
Given this impact on civic life, the Advocacy Team for Security Sector Reform has proposed a review of the TNI Law, including Article 74. Public awareness of this defective mechanism has been fueled not only by the Yunus case but by two other chilling incidents: the fatal beating of a teenager by military personnel who received a lenient sentence, and the arson attack on a journalist's home that killed almost his entire family. In the latter case, while civilian arsonists were convicted, the alleged "mastermind" within the TNI remained untouched.
The Advocacy Team has now expanded its challenge against Law No. 3/2025 (the amendment of Law No. 34/2004), targeting provisions antithetical to constitutional mandates.
First, military operations other than war (MOOTW) and oversight. Critique of Article 7, paragraph (2) focuses on MOOTW. By permitting military assistance in regional administration, the law risks unconstitutional intervention in communal conflicts and labor disputes. Under Article 30 of the Constitution, the police maintain exclusive jurisdiction over internal security.
Furthermore, Article 7, paragraph (4) allows these operations to be governed by presidential regulations without legislative oversight, effectively paralyzing civilian control and bypassing the House of Representatives.
Second, civilian posts. The expansion of roles for active TNI personnel under Article 47, allowing them to occupy posts in the State Secretariat, the Supreme Court and other agencies, undermines military professionalism. Diverting soldiers into civil administration contradicts their specialized training and risks reintroducing the military into practical politics.
Third, structural stagnation. The challenge to Article 53 regarding the extension of retirement ages addresses the risk of organizational bottlenecks. Extending service years for high-ranking officers hampers promotional cycles and inflates state budgets. The government should instead prioritize career reforms and reinforce the core professionalism of the armed forces.
The fight against impunity is not just a legal technicality; it is a struggle to ensure that the logic of command never supersedes the logic of justice.
[The writer is head of legal division at the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras).]