The South Jakarta District Court has ordered Jakarta Police to continue pursuing the investigation into the acid attack against Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) activist Andrie Yunus, delivering a significant ruling in a closely watched case that has raised questions about accountability, law enforcement procedures, and the handling of alleged violence involving military personnel.
The decision came after a pretrial motion filed by the Democracy Advocacy Team (TAUD), which challenged the status of the investigation and sought judicial intervention to ensure that legal proceedings continued. While the court rejected several parts of the application, it ultimately instructed Jakarta Police to proceed with the criminal investigation related to the acid attack.
The ruling has become an important development in a case that has attracted national attention since the assault on Andrie Yunus earlier this year. Human rights organizations, legal advocates, and civil society groups have closely monitored the investigation, arguing that authorities must ensure a transparent and thorough process regardless of who may be implicated.
Speaking at Metro Jaya Police headquarters on Tuesday, Jakarta Police Criminal Investigation Director Senior Commissioner Iman Imanuddin said the police force respected the court’s decision and would follow the applicable legal framework in handling the case.
He emphasized that law enforcement institutions are obligated to adhere to judicial rulings and national regulations. According to Iman, the police would continue to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the law and under the guidance of the court’s ruling.
The response from police leadership came shortly after the court issued its verdict, which partially granted the petition submitted by TAUD.
Metro Jaya Police spokesperson Senior Commissioner Budi Hermanto said the ruling actually confirmed that investigators had never formally terminated the case. According to him, the court found no evidence showing that police had secretly stopped investigating the acid attack or had quietly closed the case without proper legal procedures.
Budi argued that one of the key conclusions of the court was that there had been no formal decision to halt the investigation. Because no legal termination had occurred, he said, the request to challenge a supposed hidden discontinuation of the case could not be fully accepted by the court.
He further noted that the court also rejected claims that police had intentionally prolonged the investigation without taking meaningful action.
According to Budi, the judge concluded that there was insufficient legal evidence to establish that investigators had handled the matter in an unnecessarily lengthy or unreasonable manner.
The police spokesperson said that although the court rejected those arguments, the judge nevertheless decided to partially grant the petition by ordering investigators to continue processing the case.
That aspect of the ruling has been interpreted as judicial confirmation that the investigation remains active and that authorities must continue pursuing legal avenues related to the attack.
The pretrial hearing was presided over by single judge Suparna at the South Jakarta District Court.
In reading the verdict, the judge stated that the petition was granted in part. The court specifically ordered Metro Jaya Police to continue handling the criminal report related to the acid attack.
The report referenced in the ruling was filed under a police report dated March 13, 2026.
Beyond ordering the continuation of the investigation, the court rejected the remainder of the petition.
The verdict represents a compromise outcome. On one hand, the applicants did not secure a full judicial finding that police had unlawfully delayed or terminated the case. On the other hand, they succeeded in obtaining a court order requiring investigators to continue the legal process.
The acid attack against Andrie Yunus has become one of the most prominent human rights-related criminal cases in Indonesia this year.
Andrie is known for his work with KontraS, one of Indonesia’s leading human rights organizations. The group has long been involved in monitoring cases involving alleged abuses of power, forced disappearances, military accountability, and civil liberties.
The attack triggered widespread concern among activists and legal observers, who warned that violence against human rights defenders could have broader implications for democratic participation and freedom of expression.
Questions surrounding the investigation intensified after police initially handled the case through what is known as a Model A police report, a report initiated by authorities themselves after the incident occurred.
The investigation later entered a complicated jurisdictional landscape when police transferred aspects of the case to the Indonesian Military Police Center (Puspom TNI).
That transfer sparked debate over whether civilian law enforcement authorities should continue investigating elements of the case or whether responsibility should rest entirely with military institutions.
The issue became even more significant after military prosecutors moved forward with proceedings against several members of the armed forces.
At present, two separate reports related to the acid attack remain under review by authorities.
The first is the original Model A report initiated by police shortly after the attack.
The second is a Model B report filed by TAUD with the National Police Criminal Investigation Agency, commonly known as Bareskrim.
That complaint was subsequently transferred to Metro Jaya Police for further handling.
The existence of multiple reports and overlapping investigative tracks has contributed to public confusion regarding the status of the case.
Legal observers have argued that coordination between civilian and military justice systems remains one of the central challenges in ensuring accountability when allegations involve military personnel.
At the same time, proceedings have already begun at Military Court II-08 Jakarta against four defendants connected to the incident.
The defendants are identified as Second Sergeant Edi Sudarko, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetyo, and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka.
The military trial represents a separate legal process from the civilian investigation being pursued by Jakarta Police.
That dual-track approach reflects Indonesia’s legal framework, under which active-duty military personnel are generally prosecuted through military courts, while civilian authorities may continue investigating related criminal aspects.
The relationship between those parallel proceedings has become a focal point of public discussion.
Human rights advocates have consistently argued that transparency and coordination are essential to ensure that all aspects of the case are addressed and that no potential evidence or accountability mechanism falls through institutional gaps.
The South Jakarta court’s ruling is therefore being viewed as more than a procedural decision. It serves as a reminder that investigators remain obligated to pursue the facts and continue legal processes even when questions arise about jurisdiction or the involvement of military institutions.
For supporters of the pretrial motion, the decision represents an important safeguard against the possibility that the investigation could lose momentum.
For police, the ruling provides judicial clarification that the case remains active while also affirming that investigators had not formally shut down the process.
As both the civilian investigation and military court proceedings continue, attention is likely to remain focused on whether authorities can establish a comprehensive account of the attack, identify all responsible parties, and ensure that legal accountability is pursued through the appropriate institutions.
The case has become a broader test of Indonesia’s commitment to protecting human rights defenders and maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. The court’s order ensures that, at least for now, the investigation into the acid attack against Andrie Yunus will continue moving forward under judicial scrutiny.
