The Application of Article 170 of Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code in the Case of Acid Attack Against Andrie Yunus
Nichelle Arien Wijaya
Introduction
The acid attack against Deputy Coordinator of Commission for The Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan/KontraS), Andrie Yunus, raises not only ordinary criminal law issues, but also fundamental questions concerning judicial jurisdiction following allegations of civilian involvement alongside active members of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (Tentara Nasional Indonesia/TNI). These allegations are significant because they may alter the legal construction of the case into a koneksitas case[i] for the purposes of Article 170 of Law No. 20 of 2025 (the Criminal Procedure Code)[ii].
Under the koneksitas mechanism, criminal offenses committed jointly by civilians and military personnel fall, in principle, under the jurisdiction of the general courts. Consequently, important legal questions arise regarding the application of koneksitas jurisdiction, the legal significance of Andrie Yunus’s new police report, and the implications for the ongoing military court proceedings.
The importance of this issue is further heightened by growing public concern regarding civil-military relations in Indonesia’s democratic system, particularly amid criticism concerning the expansion of military influence into non-defense sectors. As a result, the Andrie Yunus case is no longer perceived merely as an ordinary criminal offense, but also as a test of the state’s commitment to protecting human rights activists and ensuring an independent, transparent, and accountable criminal justice process.
Legal Basis and the Concept of Koneksitas Jurisdiction
The acid attack case against Andrie Yunus continues to develop and has generated increasingly complex legal issues, particularly after allegations by the Tim Advokasi untuk Demokrasi (TAUD)—Andrie Yunus's team of lawyers—that, in addition to active TNI personnel, civilians were implicated in the perpetration of the crime. This development is important because it may transform the case from an ordinary military criminal matter into a koneksitas case for the purposes of Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Conceptually, koneksitas jurisdiction is a special judicial mechanism applied to criminal offenses jointly committed by individuals subject to two different judicial systems, namely the general courts and the military courts. Accordingly, the principal requirement for a koneksitas case is the existence of participation (deelneming) involving actors from different jurisdictions, i.e. civilians and military personnel.
Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code essentially provides that criminal offenses committed jointly by persons subject to the general courts and military courts shall fall under the jurisdiction of the general courts. However, if a koneksitas assessment determines that the resulting harm predominantly affects military interests, the case may instead be tried before the military courts. This provision is based on a decision of the Minister of Defense with the approval of the Minister of Law and Human Rights.
Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code further provides that investigations in koneksitas cases must be conducted jointly by Investigators and the military police of the Indonesian National Armed Forces under the coordination of the Public Prosecutor and military prosecutor. The provision also requires investigators and military police to report the results of the Investigation to the Public Prosecutor and military prosecutor within seven days after completion of the Investigation. These provisions demonstrate that the koneksitas mechanism is designed not merely as a procedural rule concerning judicial forum, but also as an integrated coordination mechanism between civilian and military law enforcement institutions.
The Position of Military Courts within Indonesia’s Judicial System
Under Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, both the general courts and military courts form part of a unified judicial power system under the Supreme Court. Military courts therefore constitute a special judicial environment with authority over military personnel rather than an entirely separate institution. Nevertheless, this distinction creates the possibility of jurisdictional conflict, particularly in cases implicating both military and civilian actors.
Normatively, Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes that judicial authority is determined primarily by the status of the perpetrator rather than the nature of the offense. Accordingly, criminal acts committed by active military personnel principally fall within the jurisdiction of military courts. This principle is reinforced by Article 65 of Law No. 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Armed Forces, which provides that active soldiers remain subject to military jurisdiction, including in cases involving ordinary criminal offenses. The continued application of Law No. 31 of 1997 concerning Military Courts further demonstrates that military jurisdiction remains dominant in practice. Consequently, Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not merely be interpreted as a technical jurisdictional provision, but also as an instrument for balancing legal certainty with substantive justice[iii].
Subjective and Objective Elements in Koneksitas Cases
In practice, koneksitas cases contain two essential elements, namely the subjective element and the objective element. The subjective element concerns the perpetrators of the offense originating from two distinct jurisdictions, namely civilians and military personnel. This element is closely related to the doctrine of participation under Articles 20[iv] and 21 paragraph (1)[v] of Indonesia’s Criminal Code, which encompass principal offenders (pleger), indirect perpetrators (doen pleger), co-perpetrators (medepleger), instigators (uitlokker), and accomplices (medeplichtige).
Accordingly, if in the Andrie Yunus case it is established that civilians participated in planning the attack, providing facilities or funding, assisting in the execution, or even instructing the acid attack together with active TNI personnel, then the element of cross-jurisdictional participation may be considered fulfilled. Under such circumstances, the case could potentially qualify as a koneksitas matter.
Reports regarding the investigation indicate that the acid attack was allegedly carried out in a planned manner and involved several perpetrators. It has been reported that four active TNI personnel from Headquarters Detachment of the Strategic Intelligence Agency of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (Detasemen Markas Badan Intelijen Strategis Tentara Nasional Indonesia/Denma BAIS TNI) were detained and named as suspects, namely Captain NDP, First Lieutenant SL, First Lieutenant BHW, and Sergeant ES. The alleged involvement of active military personnel is legally significant because it directly affects the determination of judicial jurisdiction and reinforces the relevance of Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Meanwhile, the objective element concerns the nature of the offense and the legal interests harmed by the act. Examination of this element is necessary to determine the most appropriate judicial forum. In the context of the Andrie Yunus case, the argument that the matter should be tried before the general courts appears particularly strong because the victim is a civilian and human rights activist, the alleged offense occurred within a civilian sphere, the alleged conduct constitutes an ordinary criminal offense, and the act is unrelated to national defense functions or official military duties.
The Significance of the New Police Report
In this context, Andrie Yunus’s new report to the police becomes highly significant. The report may serve as an entry point for the Indonesian National Police (Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia/Polri) to investigate the possible involvement of civilians, whether as principal offenders, co-perpetrators, accomplices, or instigators. If civilian involvement is discovered, Polri retains the authority to conduct investigations and institute criminal proceedings against those civilian actors.
The existence of the new report may also broaden the legal construction of the case from one initially involving only military personnel into a full koneksitas case. This is important because the koneksitas mechanism fundamentally aims to prevent the separation of proceedings (splitsing), which may otherwise result in fragmented factual findings, inconsistent judgments, and difficulties in uncovering intellectual actors and command relationships among perpetrators.
Implications for the Ongoing Military Trial
The issue becomes increasingly complex because criminal proceedings against the accused active TNI personnel are already ongoing before the military courts. If civilian involvement is later proven, legal questions will arise concerning absolute jurisdiction and whether the case should have initially been tried through the koneksitas mechanism.
Normatively, civilian involvement does not automatically invalidate or terminate the ongoing military proceedings. As long as the current defendants are active TNI personnel, the military courts continue to possess jurisdiction to try them. Consequently, in practice, the military trial will most likely continue.
At the same time, debates surrounding military courts are closely related to concerns regarding institutional independence. Because military courts remain structurally connected to the military institution itself, questions frequently arise concerning the objectivity and transparency of proceedings involving active military members. These concerns are particularly relevant given that the victim is a human rights activist known for criticizing state institution—military institution all the more.
Conclusions
Ultimately, if civilian involvement in the acid attack against Andrie Yunus is proven, the case may potentially qualify as a koneksitas matter under Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, civilian involvement does not automatically terminate the ongoing military proceedings against active TNI personnel. In practice, the most likely scenario is that the matter will continue to be tried separately between the military courts and the general courts, although such an approach may still generate debate regarding jurisdiction and the effectiveness of comprehensively uncovering all responsible actors.
The legitimacy of the judicial process in the Andrie Yunus case therefore depends not only on formal jurisdictional rules, but also on the extent to which the proceedings uphold transparency, accountability, independence, and substantive justice. Accordingly, the handling of the case must not stop at prosecuting direct perpetrators alone but must also comprehensively investigate the possible involvement of all related actors, whether military or civilian. Only through a thorough, transparent, and accountable legal process can substantive justice be achieved and public trust in Indonesia’s criminal justice system be restored.
[i] Koneksitas is a special judicial mechanism applied to criminal offenses committed jointly by legal subjects who are subject to two different judicial jurisdictions, namely the general courts and the military courts.
[ii] Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads [author’s translation]:
Criminal acts committed jointly by persons falling under the jurisdiction of the general courts and the military courts shall be examined and adjudicated by courts within the general court system.
If the criminal act referred to in paragraph (1) primarily causes harm to military interests, the case shall be examined and adjudicated by courts within the military court system.
Investigations of criminal cases as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted jointly by Investigators and military police of the Indonesian National Armed Forces under the coordination of the Public Prosecutor and military prosecutor.
Investigators and military police of the Indonesian National Armed Forces shall, within a maximum of seven (7) Days from the completion of the Investigation, report the Investigation of the koneksitas case to the Public Prosecutor and military prosecutor.
Investigation as referred to in paragraph (3) shall be conducted in accordance with the laws governing Investigation of crimes.
[iii] Substantive justice is a legal approach that prioritizes essential truth, a sense of justice, and societal benefit directly experienced by the public rather than merely rigid compliance with written procedures. This concept of justice focuses on final outcomes that are proportional and relevant to the facts, often involving judicial discretion to explore living legal values so that the law does not merely function as the “mouthpiece of legislation”. Substantive justice ensures that the outcome genuinely reflects justice.
[iv] Article 20 of the Criminal Code reads [author’s translation]:
Any person shall be punishable as a perpetrator of a criminal offense if they:
a. personally commit the criminal offense;
b. commit the criminal offense through an intermediary or instruct another person who cannot be held criminally responsible;
c. participate in committing the criminal offense; or
d. induce another person to commit the criminal offense by giving or promising something, abusing power or authority, using violence, making threats of violence, committing deception, or by providing opportunities, means, or information.
[v] Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code reads [author’s translation]:
Any person shall be punishable as an accomplice to a criminal offense if they intentionally:
a. provide opportunities, means, or information for the commission of a criminal offense; or
b. provide assistance at the time the criminal offense is being committed.