Civil society groups and student activists converged on Jakarta’s Constitutional Court this Wednesday, demanding justice for a human rights defender who was targeted in a brutal acid attack. The protests coincide with a pivotal legal review of the Indonesian Military (TNI) Law, a piece of legislation that critics argue paves the way for renewed military influence in civilian governance.
The demonstrations were held in solidarity with Andrie Yunus, a legal advocate from the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras). Yunus was the target of an acid attack on March 12 while returning home. He remains under intensive medical care for burns to his face, eyes, chest and hands, and was unable to attend Wednesday’s court proceedings.
The assault on Yunus is being framed by advocates not as an isolated crime, but as a direct attempt to silence those challenging the state’s expanded military powers. Yunus had been serving as legal counsel for petitioners seeking to overturn key provisions of the TNI law, which now allows active-duty soldiers to occupy civilian government posts without resigning their military commissions.
The intersection of this violent attack and the ongoing legal challenge has sparked a broader conversation about the state of democracy in Indonesia, with protesters warning of a slide toward authoritarianism and the erosion of civilian oversight over the armed forces.
Legal Challenges to the TNI Law
The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing petitions filed by five rights organizations—including Kontras, Imparsial, and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI)—alongside three human rights researchers. The core of their grievance centers on the potential for military personnel to exert undue influence over civilian administration and the lack of accountability for soldiers who commit crimes.
A primary objective of the petitioners is to revoke a specific provision that mandates all criminal offenses committed by military personnel be handled by military tribunals. Advocates argue that this creates a “dual legal system” that shields soldiers from the transparency and rigor of civilian courts, effectively granting them immunity for abuses of power.
During the Wednesday session, Muhammad Fadhil Alfathan, a lawyer from Kontras and colleague of the injured Yunus, told the bench that the attack on Yunus was a direct result of a “lack of security guarantees.” He urged the court to provide guaranteed protection for all legal professionals involved in the challenge against the military law.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo responded by stating that while the court does not restrict the right to file petitions, the plaintiffs should seek protective measures through the police.
Escalating Tensions and State Repression
The mood outside the court was one of defiance and urgency. Students from the University of Indonesia’s student union, BEM UI, led the rally, delivering speeches that linked the attack on Yunus to a wider pattern of repression. Yatalathof Ma’shum Imawan, chair of BEM UI, stated that the court must not succumb to pressure in the face of “rising authoritarianism and growing repression by military personnel.”
The protest also served as a gathering point for those previously targeted by the state. Among the attendees was Khariq Anhar, a student who was acquitted last month by a district court. Anhar had previously been charged with inciting riots during anti-government protests in August 2025, a prosecution that human rights observers characterized as an attempt to intimidate critics of the administration.
Investigation and Arrests
The investigation into the acid attack has moved from civilian to military jurisdiction, a transition that has drawn criticism from those calling for a transparent, civilian-led trial. The Jakarta Police handed the case over to the military police earlier this month.
To date, the military police have arrested four soldiers. These individuals have been identified as members of the TNI Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS), the military’s primary intelligence arm. The involvement of BAIS has intensified calls from protesters and legal petitioners for the suspects to be tried in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal, arguing that only a civilian trial can ensure impartial justice.
| Date | Event | Status/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| August 2025 | Anti-government protests | Led to widespread arrests, including student Khariq Anhar |
| March 12, 2026 | Assault on Andrie Yunus | Human rights lawyer targeted with acid; currently hospitalized |
| Early April 2026 | Case Transfer | Jakarta Police hand over acid attack probe to military police |
| April 9, 2026 | Court Hearing | Expert testimonies heard; protests held outside Constitutional Court |
The Implications for Civilian Oversight
The controversy surrounding the TNI law is rooted in Indonesia’s long struggle to move away from the “New Order” era, where the military held a formal role in political governance. By allowing soldiers to hold civilian posts without resigning, critics argue the new law reverses decades of democratic reform aimed at separating military command from civil administration.
The case is not merely about the legality of a single law, but about the safety of the legal profession. When lawyers are targeted for their advocacy, it creates a “chilling effect” that can deter others from challenging state power. The request for security guarantees reflects a growing fear that the legal system is becoming a dangerous arena for human rights defenders.
For the petitioners, the outcome of this case will determine whether the Indonesian military remains subordinate to civilian law or whether it can operate within a parallel legal universe, accountable only to its own internal tribunals.
Disclaimer: This article discusses legal proceedings and criminal allegations. All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The Constitutional Court is scheduled to hold its next hearing on April 16, which will focus on hearing the final arguments from both the petitioners and the state. This session will be the final step before the court renders its decision on the validity of the TNI law’s controversial provisions.
We invite you to share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below and share this report with your network to keep the conversation on judicial independence alive.
