Dutch and Japanese Occupation Period
Before World War II, the Dutch Military Court in Indonesia was known as the "Krijgsraad" and the "Hoog Militair Gerechtshof." This court's scope covered military crimes, and its members consisted of the Dutch Army in Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies), namely the KNIL, and members of the Dutch Navy. Members of the Dutch East Indies Army (KNIL) were examined and tried by the "Krijgsraad" at first instance and the "Hoog Militair Gerechtshof" at the appellate level. Meanwhile, members of the Dutch Navy were examined and tried by the "Zeekrijgsraad" and the "Hoog Militair Gerechtshof."
The "Krijgsraad" was located in the cities of Cimahi, Padang, and Ujung Pandang, each with its own jurisdiction. Thus, the Dutch authorities in Java and Madura, as well as outside the region, established a "Temporaire Krijgsraad," a temporary Military Court, authorized to try criminal cases involving individuals who were not military personnel and were not classified as Indonesians. The panel of judges consisted of three people, and the Prosecutor was the Landgerecht Prosecutor.
The Provisional Military Court (Dutch) convened with a Panel of Judges. The Indonesian Supreme Court historically continued the "Het Hooggerechtshof Ver Indonesie" (Supreme Court of the Dutch East Indies government in Indonesia) established by R.0 in 1842. Het Hooggerechtshof (HGH) was the cassation judge against the decisions of the Raad Van Justitie (RV), which was the daily court for Europeans and those like them. Het Hooggerechtshof was based in Jakarta.
Post-Independence Period of the Republic of Indonesia (1945 to 1970)
The independence of the Republic of Indonesia was the starting point for law enforcement by the Indonesian nation. On August 18 1945, Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution were ratified as the foundations of the Republic of Indonesia, which contained basic values and fundamental rules based on law, not power.
After the founding of the Republic of Indonesia, the government maintained the judicial bodies and regulations from the Japanese Occupation era with changes/additions based on the 1945 Constitution. In connection with this, to avoid a legal vacuum in the 1945 Constitution, Transitional Provisions were made (Article II):
"All existing State Agencies and Regulations are still in effect as long as new ones are not created according to this Constitution."
This provision constitutes the most important legal basis for judicial practice in Indonesia in the post-Proclamation era. With this provision, the courts (especially the General Courts and Religious Courts) that existed during the Japanese occupation continued to operate as before. The same should apply to the Military Courts. Based on this transitional provision, the Indonesian government also inherited the Military Courts that existed during the Japanese occupation.
However, the Indonesian Government's statement at that time stated that the practice did not transfer the Military Court from the previous era. Also, after the formation of the Indonesian Armed Forces on October 5, 1945, the Military Court had not yet been established. The Military Court was only established after the issuance of Law No. 7 of 1946 on June 8, 1946. However, this does not mean that during the period between October 5, 1945 and June 8, 1946, there was no Law and Justice within the Armed Forces. It had become a principle, especially for TNI leaders, that justice must always be upheld under any circumstances. The fact that at that time, due to the circumstances that Military Courts had not yet been established, did not mean that no action was taken against violations of the Law, as is known, disciplinary law always applies within the Military Environment. This was what was implemented at that time, violations committed within the ABRI Environment were resolved and justice was upheld.
The Disciplinary Court is a tool for upholding justice, but in the ABRI environment in particular it is felt to be insufficient to meet the needs, as evidenced by the issuance of Law No. 7 of 1946 concerning Regulations for the Establishment of Military Courts in addition to Regular Courts. The Military Court at that time consisted of 2 (two) bodies (levels), namely:
If necessary, due to circumstances, it is also possible to establish an Extraordinary Military Court. The Military Court, based on Government Regulation No. 37 of 1948, consists of:
Since the issuance of Emergency Law No. 16 of 1950, the regulations regarding the structure and powers within the Military Court Environment in Indonesia can be said to have been firmly established, the same structure as PP. No. 37 of 1948. The provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 5 of 1950 concerning judicial power in the Military Court are carried out by, namely:
In terms of law enforcement, Sukarno's government, known for its authoritarianism, consistently attempted to systematically and in various ways influence the judiciary, both through knowledge of the law and direct intervention by the executive branch in the judicial process. The implementation of independent judicial power began when President Sukarno issued the Presidential Decree of July 5, 1959.
Sukarno then intervened in the implementation of the independent judiciary through Law No. 19 of 1964, concerning the basic provisions of judicial power. Revolutionary Political Rhetoric had entered Law No. 19 of 1964, which gave the President the power to intervene in the judiciary if national interests or revolutionary interests were threatened. President Sukarno gave ministerial status to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This meant that the President made the Chief Justice an element of government power that assisted the President (Article 17 of the 1945 Constitution), this policy was very contrary to the concepts of the 1945 Constitution.
The intervention of the Executive power in the implementation of judicial power continued into the New Order era under President Soeharto. The Soeharto government hampered the implementation of the power of an independent judicial institution through Law No. 14 of 1970, concerning the principles of judicial power. Independent judicial power could not be fully implemented because the administrative, organizational and financial arrangements of judicial institutions were placed under the Ministry of Justice. This can be seen in the provisions of Article 11 of the Law which created dualism in the implementation of judicial power, namely one side of the technical side of the judiciary was under the Supreme Court and the Administrative, Organizational and Financial side was under the control of the Ministry of Justice. During the New Order era, normatively, it seemed to reorganize judicial power as regulated in Law No. 14 of 1970 and various laws and regulations in the field of justice that emphasized the independent judicial power free from the influence of government power and other extrajudicial parties.
According to Article 6 of Law No. 19 of 1948, in the Republic of Indonesia there are 3 (three) judicial environments, namely:
When Indonesia became a United States, the regulation of judicial institutions in the RIS constitution was broader than in the 1945 Constitution. As a guarantee of the proper implementation of justice, the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (RIS) was no longer used, instead the UUDS (Provisional Constitution) was used.
This change automatically affected the judicial system, as the UUDS no longer recognized regions or states, meaning that regional courts were no longer recognized. As a realization of the UUDS, Emergency Law No. 1 of 1951 was enacted in 1951. This emergency law then became the basis for the abolition of several courts that were inconsistent with the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. This included the gradual abolition of the Swapraja Courts in certain regions and all customary courts.
The return to the 1945 Constitution has not been realized purely and against the existence of the independence of the Indonesian judicial institution as in articles 24 and 25 of the 1945 Constitution. In its explanation, it is upheld that judicial power is an independent power, meaning it is free from the influence of government power, however, in its implementation it has deviated from the 1945 Constitution, among others, Law No. 19 of 1964 concerning the intervention of the president in the courts. Even in its explanation it is stated that the courts are not free from the influence of the Executive power and the power of the law makers.
The influence of authoritarian government power on the implementation of independent judicial institutions occurs from the court process to organizational, administrative, and financial arrangements. All executive influence on the judiciary must be seen in terms of hindering the implementation of independent judicial powers. Authoritarian government power consistently attempts to systematically and in various ways influence the power of the judiciary, both through legislative regulations and direct intervention of executive power in the judicial process. Against the backdrop of the political system during the era of the great leaders of the revolution, Law No. 10 of 1985 concerning courts within the judicial environment was born.
General Courts and the Supreme Court. During that era, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court served as a minister, assisting the president. The provisions of Law No. 19 of 1964 clearly contradict Articles 24 and 25 of the 1945 Constitution and their explanations.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the judicial power during the Guided Democracy/Old Order era was not an independent judicial power. Institutionally, the judicial power at that time was not free from the influence of the Executive and Legislative powers, even the President.
The Reform Period of the Judicial Institutions (1970-1998)
Based on the political background as stated above, Law No. 14 of 1970 concerning the main provisions of judicial power was born as a replacement for Law No. 19 of 1964. Law No. 14 of 1970 was the result of conflicting opinions between the New Order component group and the strength of the Military group who did not want the power of the Indonesian State judicial institution to be free from government or bureaucratic control. The result of the compromise of the two conflicting views was the revocation of Article 19, and the meaning of Articles 24 and 25 along with their solutions were included in the new Law on judicial power but the development of administration, organization and finance of the General Court and State Administrative Court, whose director general was from the Supreme Court.
In accordance with the development of terms in the field of justice, which are contained in various laws, including Law No. 14 of 1970 concerning the Main Provisions on Judicial Power, it is necessary to make adjustments to the name of the Military Court, namely to become:
The power of an independent judicial institution has been stated in Article 11' paragraph (1) of the MPR RI Decree No. 111 / MPR / 1978 which states "The Supreme Court is a body that exercises judicial power which in carrying out its duties is free from the influence of other extrajudicial parties. However, in reality, in the period from 1970 until the fall of the New Order, the independence of the judicial institution could not be realized as expected.
The laws that regulate judicial power are:
In accordance with the various laws above, there are four organizational environments of the power of the Judicial Institution, namely:
These judicial bodies are based on the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority for all jurisdictions. These courts and their various judicial bodies can be divided into two categories: General Courts and Special Courts.
The Religious, Military, and State Administrative Courts are special judicial bodies. They are called Special Judicial Bodies because
Adjudicating certain cases, namely criminal and civil cases. The proper application of certain substantive laws is the application of Islamic religious substantive law (certain) by the Religious Courts. Administrative substantive law (certain) by the State Administrative Courts. And military substantive law (certain) by the Military Courts.
Judging certain groups. Religious courts adjudicate certain civil cases (such as divorce, inheritance, waqf) for those who are Muslim.
Military Courts try criminal or disciplinary cases against members of the Indonesian Armed Forces or other persons who are treated the same as those of the Indonesian Armed Forces.
The State Administrative Court tries State Administrative bodies or officials.
The Military Court environment has a different structure, although it culminates in the Supreme Court.
Based on Law No. 31 of 1997, Military Courts are structured as follows:
The Judiciary in the Military Court Environment is the Body that implements the Judicial Power in the Armed Forces Environment, with the task and authority to try criminal acts committed by a person at the time of committing the crime, namely:
Examine, decide and resolve the relevant Armed Forces Administrative dispute at the request of the party who suffered losses as a result of the Criminal Act which is the basis of the indictment and simultaneously decide both cases in one Decision.
As for the Courts within the Military Court Environment, according to Law No. 31 of 1997, they consist of:
The seat of the Main Military Court is in the Capital City of the Republic of Indonesia, while the name, seat and jurisdiction of other courts are determined by the Commander-in-Chief's Decree and if necessary the Military Court and the High Military Court can hold sessions outside their seat, also if necessary the Military Court and the High Military Court can hold sessions outside their jurisdiction with the permission of the Chief of the Main Military Commander while the Highest Court in the Military Court at the Cassation Level is under the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
HISTORY OF MILITARY COURTS IN INDONESIA
a. Masa Pendudukan Belanda dan Jepang
Sebelum perang Dunia ke-II, Peradilan Militer Belanda di Indonesia dikenal dengan “Krijgsraad” dan “Hoog Militair Gerechtshof”. Peradilan ini ruang lingkupnya meliputi perbuatan pidana militer dan anggota-anggotanya terdiri dari Angkatan Darat Belanda di Indonesia (Hindia Belanda) yaitu KNIL dan anggota Angkatan Laut Belanda. Anggota Angkatan Darat Hindia Belanda (KNIL) di periksa dan di adili oleh “Krijgsraad” untuk tingkat pertama dan “Hoog Militair Gerechtshof” untuk tingkat banding.
Sedangkan anggota-anggota Angkatan Laut Belanda di periksa dan di adili oleh “Zeekrijgsraad” dan “Hoog Militair Gerechtshof” , “Krijgsraad” terdapat di kota Cimahi, Padang, Ujung Pandang dengan daerah hukum masing-masing. Dengan demikian penguasa Belanda di Jawa-Madura maupun diluar daerah mengadakan “Temporaire Krijgsraad” yaitu Mahkamah Militer sementara yang di beri wewenang pula mengadili tindak pidana yang oleh orang-orang bukan Militer serta bukan di golongkan dalam bangsa Indonesia. Majelis Hakim terdiri dari 3 (tiga) orang, Oditur ialah Jaksa landgerecht.
Mahkamah Militer Sementara (Belanda) itu bersidang dengan Majelis Hakim. Mahkamah Agung Indonesia dalam sejarahnya melakukan kelanjutan dari “Het Hooggerechtshof Ver Indonesie” (Mahkamah Agung pemerintah Hindia Hindia Belanda di Indonesia) yang didirikan berdasarkan R.0 tahun 1842 dan Het Hooggerechtshof (HGH) merupakan hakim kasasi terhadap putusan-putusan Raad Van Justitie (RV) yaitu peradilan�peradilan sehari-hari bagi orang-orang Eropa dan yang di samakan dengan mereka. Het Hooggerechtshof berkedudukan di Jakarta.
b. Masa Sesudah Kemerdekaan Republik Indonesia (1945 s/d 1970)
Kemerdekaan Negara Republik Indonesia, merupakan titik awal penegakan hukum oleh Bangsa Indonesia. Tanggal 18 Agustus 1945 disahkan Pancasila dan UUD 1945 sebagai dasar Negara RI yang di dalamnya terkandung nilai-nilai dasar dan kaedah yang fundamental berdasarkan atas hukum bukan kekuasaan.
Setelah berdirinya Negara Republik Indonesia, pemerintah tetap mempertahankan badan-badan Peradilan serta Peraturan-Peraturan dari Jaman Pendudukan Jepang dengan perubahan-perubahan / penambahan-penambahan berdasarkan UUD 1945. Berhubung dengan itu untuk menghindarkan kekosongan hukum dalam UUD 1945 diadakanlah Ketentuan Peralihan (Pasal II) :
"All existing State Agencies and Regulations are still in effect as long as new ones are not created according to this Constitution."
Ketentuan inilah yang merupakan dasar hukum yang terpenting dari praktek Peradilan di Indonesia pada masa dekat setelah Proklamasi. Dengan adanya ketentuan tersebut Peradilan-Peradilan (terutama Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Agama) yang telah ada di jaman pendudukan Jepang tetap berjalan seperti keadaan sebelumnya. Demikian juga seharusnya Peradilan Ketentaraan. Berdasarkan ketentuan peralihan tersebut di atas, Pemerintah Indonesia dapat mewarisi juga Peradilan Ketentaraan yang telah ada pada Jaman Pendudukan Jepang.
Tetapi dalam pernyataan Pemerintahan RI pada waktu itu prakteknya tidak mengoper Peradilan Ketentaraan dari zaman sebelumnya. Juga setelah dibentuknya Angkatan Perang RI pada tanggal 5 Oktober 1945, Peradilan Militer belum diadakan. Peradilan Militer ini baru dibentuk setelah dikeluarkannya Undang-Undang No. 7 Tahun 1946 pada tanggal 8 Juni 1946. Namun demikian ini tidak berarti bahwa pada masa diantara 5 Oktober 1945 dan 8 Juni 1946 dalam Iingkungan Angkatan Bersenjata tidak ada Hukum dan Keadilan. Adalah telah menjadi prinsip khususnya bagi para pemimpin TNI bahwa dalam keadaan apa pun keadilan harus selalu ditegakkan. Bahwa pada waktu itu berhubung dengan keadaan belum diadakan Peradilan-Peradilan Militer, tidak berarti bahwa terhadap pelanggaran-pelanggaran Hukum sama sekali tidak diadakan tindakan apapun, seperti diketahui dalam Lingkungan Militer selalu berlaku hukum disiplin, inilah pada masa itu pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang dilakukan di Lingkungan ABRI diselesaikan serta keadilan ditegakkan.
Bahwa Peradilan Disiplin ini sebagai alat untuk menegakkan keadilan, khususnya di Lingkungan ABRI memang dirasakan masih kurang mencukupi kebutuhan, dapat dibuktikan dengan dikeluarkannya Undang-Undang No. 7 Tahun 1946 tentang Peraturan mengadakan Pengadilan Tentara disamping Pengadilan Biasa. Pengadilan Tentara pada waktu itu terdiri dari 2 (dua) badan (tingkat) yakni :
If necessary, due to circumstances, it is also possible to establish an Extraordinary Military Court. The Military Court, based on Government Regulation No. 37 of 1948, consists of:
Since the issuance of Emergency Law No. 16 of 1950, the regulations regarding the structure and powers within the Military Court Environment in Indonesia can be said to have been firmly established, the same structure as PP. No. 37 of 1948. The provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 5 of 1950 concerning judicial power in the Military Court are carried out by, namely:
Dalam hal penegakan hukum dapat di lihat pada pemerintahan Soekarno yang dikenal dengan pemerintahan Otoriter, senantiasa berupaya dengan sistematik dan dengan berbagai cara mempengaruhi kekuasaan lembaga peradilan balk melalui pengetahuan perundang-undangan maupun inerpensi langsung kekuasaan eksekutif terhadap proses peradilan. pelaksaaan kekuasaan lembaga peradilan yang independent dimulai ketika Presiden Soekarno memaklumkan Dekrit Presiden 5 Juli 1959.
Soekarno kemudian melakukan intervensi terhadap pelaksanaan kekuasaan lembaga peradilan yang bebas melalui UU no. 19 tahun 1964, tentang ketentuan-ketentuan pokok kekuasaan kehakiman. Retorika Politik Revolusioner telah memasuki UU. No 19 tahun 1964, yang memberikan kekuasaan kepada Presiden untuk melakukan Interversi terhadap peradilan dalam hal kepentingan nasional atau kepentingan revolusi terancam. Presiden Soekarno memberikan status menteri kepada Ketua Mahkamah Agung. lni berarti Presiden menjadikan Ketua Mahkamah Agung sebagai unsur kekuasaan pemerintah yang membantu Presiden (UUD 1945 pasal 17), kebijakan ini sangat bertentangan dengan konsep-konsep UUD 1945.
Intervensi kekuasaan Eksekutif terhadap pelaksanaan kekuasaan lembaga peradilan berlanjut ke era pemerintahan Orde Baru di bawah Presiden Soeharto. Pemerintahan Soeharto mengahambat pelaksanaan kekuasaan lembagan peradilan yang Independen melalui UU. No 14 tahun 1970, tentang pokok-pokok kekuasaan kehakiman. Kekuasaan Kehakiman yang bebas tidak dapat dilaksanakan secara utuh karena pengaturan administrasi, Organisasi dan Finansial lembaga peradilan diletakkan di bawal departemen kehakiman. Hal ini dapat di lihat dalam ketentuan dalam pasal 11 UU tersebut yang menimbulkan dualisme dalam pelaksanaan kekuasaan kehakiman.yaitu satu sisi teknis peradilan berada di bawah Mahkamah Agung dan sisi Administrasi, Organisasi dan Keuangan berada di bawah kendali Departemen Kehakiman.pada masa Orde Baru secara normative seakan menata kembali kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana diatur dalam UU. No. 14 tahun 1970 tersebut dan berbagai Peraturan Perundang�Undangan di bidang peradilan yang menegaskan Kekuasaan Kehakiman yang merdeka lepas dari pengaruh kekuasaan pemerintah dan pihak lain ekstra yudisial.
Menurut pasal 6 UU No. 19 tahun 1948. dalam Negara Republik Indonesia dikenal adanya 3 (tiga) lingkungan peradilan, yaitu :
Pada saat Indonesia menjadi Negara Serikat, pengaturan lembaga peradilan didalam konstitusi RIS lebih luas dibandingkan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Sebagai jaminan terlaksananya peradilan dengan baik, maka Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Serikat (RIS) tidak lagi digunakan, yang digunakan adalah UUDS (Undang-Undang Dasar Sementara).
Perubahan tersebut dengan sendirinya berpengaruh pada lembaga peradilan, karena UUDS tidak lagi mengenal daerah-daerah atau negara bagian berarti pula tidak dikenal lagi peradilan-peradilan di daerah bagian. Sebagai realisasi dari UUDS, maka pada tahun 1951 di undangkan Undang�Undang Darurat No 1 tahun 1951. Undang-Undang darurat inilah yang kemudian menjadi dasar menghapuskan beberapa peradilan yang tidak sesuai dengan Negara Kesatuan Repubik Indonesia. Termasuk secara berangsur-angsur menghapuskan Peradilan Swapraja di beberapa daerah tertentu dan semua peradilan adat.
Kembalinya kepada UUD 1945 belum terealisasikan dengan murni dan terhadap eksistensi kemandirian lembaga peradilan lndonesia seperti dalam pasal 24 dan 25 UUD 1945. Dalam penjelasannya kekuasaan kehakiman ialah kekuasaan yang merdeka, artinya terlepas dari pengaruh kekuasaan pemerintah, akan tetapi dalam pelaksanaanya telah menyimpang dari UUD 1945, antara lain pernah lahir UU No 19 tahun 1964 tentang campur tangan presiden terhadap pengadilan. Bahkan dalam penjelasannya disebutkan bahwa pengadilan tidak bebas dari pengaruh kekuasaan Eksekutif dan kekuasaan pembuat Undang-Undang.
The influence of authoritarian government power on the implementation of independent judicial institutions occurs from the court process to organizational, administrative, and financial arrangements. All executive influence on the judiciary must be seen in terms of hindering the implementation of independent judicial powers. Authoritarian government power consistently attempts to systematically and in various ways influence the power of the judiciary, both through legislative regulations and direct intervention of executive power in the judicial process. Against the backdrop of the political system during the era of the great leaders of the revolution, Law No. 10 of 1985 concerning courts within the judicial environment was born.
General Courts and the Supreme Court. During that era, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court served as a minister, assisting the president. The provisions of Law No. 19 of 1964 clearly contradict Articles 24 and 25 of the 1945 Constitution and their explanations.
Berdasarkan hal-hal tersebut, jelaslah bahwa kekuasaan lembaga peradilan pada era demokrasi terpimpin/era orde lama bukan merupakan kekuasaan lembaga peradilan yang mandiri. Sebab secara kelembagaan, kekuasaan lembaga peradilan pada masa itu tidak bebas dari pengaruh kekuasaan Eksekutif dan Legeslatif, bahkan kekuasaan Presiden.
c. Masa Reformasi Kekuasaan Lembaga Peradilan (1970-1998)
Berdasarkan pada latar belakang politik seperti yang telah diutarakan diatas, maka lahirlah UU No 14 Tahun 1970 tentang ketentuan-ketentuan pokok kekuasaan kehakiman sebagai pengganti UU No 19 tahun 1964. UU No. 14 tahun 1970 tersebut merupakan resultan dari pertentangan pendapat antara kelompok komponen Orde Baru dengan kekuatan kelompok Militer yang tidak menghendaki kekuasaan lembaga peradilan Negara RI Terlepas dari kontrol pemerintah atau birokrasi. Hasil kompromi dari dua pandangan yang sating bertentangan tersebut adalah dicabutnya pasal 19 tersebut, serta makna pasal 24 dan 25 beserta penyelesaiannya di masukakan dalam UU kekuasaan kehakiman yang baru tetapi pembinaan administrasi, organisasi dan Finansial badan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara.yang direktur jenderalnya dari Kehakiman Agung.
In accordance with the development of terms in the field of justice, which are contained in various laws, including Law No. 14 of 1970 concerning the Main Provisions on Judicial Power, it is necessary to make adjustments to the name of the Military Court, namely to become:
The power of an independent judicial institution has been stated in Article 11' paragraph (1) of the MPR RI Decree No. 111 / MPR / 1978 which states "The Supreme Court is a body that exercises judicial power which in carrying out its duties is free from the influence of other extrajudicial parties. However, in reality, in the period from 1970 until the fall of the New Order, the independence of the judicial institution could not be realized as expected.
The laws that regulate judicial power are:
In accordance with the various laws above, there are four organizational environments of the power of the Judicial Institution, namely:
Lingkungan-lingkungan peradilan tersebut berpijak pada Mahkamah Agung sebagai penyelenggara kekuasaan kehakiman tertinggi untuk semua lingkungan. Lingkungan Peradilan Militer mempunyai corak susunan yang berbeda meskipun berpuncak pada Mahkamah Agung.
Based on Law No. 31 of 1997, Military Courts are structured as follows:
1. Pengadilan Militer sebagai Peradilan Tingkat Pertama bagi Terdakwa berpangkat atau yang disamakan dengan Kapten ke bawah.
2. Pengadilan Militer Tinggi sebagai :
3. Pengadilan Militer Utama :
Pengadilan Militer Tinggi dengan Pengadilan Militer.
Memutus perbedaan pendapat antara Perwira Penyerah Perkara dengan Oditur mengenai diajukan atau tidak suatu perkara dihadapan Peradilan Militer atau Peradilan Umum.
The Judiciary in the Military Court Environment is the Body that implements the Judicial Power in the Armed Forces Environment, with the task and authority to try criminal acts committed by a person at the time of committing the crime, namely:
Examine, decide and resolve the relevant Armed Forces Administrative dispute at the request of the party who suffered losses as a result of the Criminal Act which is the basis of the indictment and simultaneously decide both cases in one Decision.
As for the Courts within the Military Court Environment, according to Law No. 31 of 1997, they consist of:
Tempat kedudukan Peradilan Militer Utama berada di Ibu Kota Negara Republik Indonesia, sedangkan nama, tempat kedudukan dan daerah hukum Peradilan Iainnya ditetapkan dengan Keputusan Panglima dan apabila perlu Peradilan Militer dan Peradilan Militer Tinggi dapat bersidang di luar tempat kedudukannya, juga apabila diperlukan Peradilan Militer dan Peradilan Militer Tinggi dapat bersidang di luar daerah hukumnya atas ijin kepala Panglima Militer Utama, sedangkan Peradilan Tertinggi dalam Peradilan Militer dalam Tingkat Kasasi adalah di bawah Mahkamah Agung RI.
Sistem Peradilan Satu Atap di Indonesia.
Perkembangan politik pasca jatuhnya Pemerintahan Orde Baru membawa tuntutan pembaharuan reformasi disegenap lapangan kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara termasuk reformasi di bidang hukum secara umum dan di bidang Pengadilan secara khusus. Reformasi sektor hukum dan Pengadilan dimaksudkan untuk memperkuat Indepedensi Kekuasaan Lembaga Peradilan.
Pemikiran Reformatif dalam bidang Hukum adalah berkenaan dengan peran kekuasaan kehakiman yang muncul dalam era reformasi pada pertengahan dan akhir tahun 1990-an adalah bahwa organisasi, administrasi dan keuangan lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman harus ditangani oleh kekuasaan kehakiman sendiri, yaitu oleh badan peradilan. Selama lembaga eksekutif menangani organisasi, administrasi dan keuangan peradilan mengakibatkan beban Peradilan tidak berdiri Independen, terpengaruh oleh kekuasaan eksekutif.
Dalam kebijakan Reformasi pembangunan bidang hukum ditetapkan oleh dua hal yang mendasar :
Penanggulangan krisis di bidang hukum bertujuan untuk pemisahan secara tegas fungsi dan wewenang Aparatur Penegak Hukum agar dapat dicapai proporsionalitas, profesionalitas dan integritas yang utuh.
Pelaksanaan Reformasi di bidang hukum yaitu :
Tahun 2004 Indonesia memasuki abad baru dalam kehidupan ketatanegaraan yang berkaitan dengan masalah penyelenggaraan fungsi kekuasaan Lembaga Peradilan. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman No. 4 Tahun 2004 Pasal 13 Ayat (1) menetapkan :
“Organisasi, administrasi dan finansial Mahkamah Agung dan Badan Peradilan yang berada di bawahnya berada di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung.”
Pemindahan kewenangan bidang organisasi, administrasi dan finansial Lembaga Peradilan dari eksekutif kepada yudikatif berdasar UU. No. 4 Tahun 2004 tersebut, maka pembinaan Bidang Teknis Yudisial dan Non Teknis Yudisial Lembaga Peradilan kini berada satu atap di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung.
Pemindahan kewenangan di bidang organisasi adalah meliputi kedudukan, tugas, fungsi, kewenangan, dan struktur organisasi pada :
Yang dimaksud dengan pemindahan kewenangan di bidang administrasi meliputi kepegawaian, kekayaan negara, keuangan, arsip dan dokumen pada Direktorat Jendral Badan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Departemen Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Direktorat Pembinaan Peradilan Agama Departemen Agama, Peradilan Tinggi, Peradilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara, Peradilan Tinggi Agama / Mahkamah Syariah, Peradilan Negeri, Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, Peradilan Agama / Mahkamah Syariah beralih dalam satu atap di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung.
Yang dimaksud dengan pengalihan di bidang finansial adalah mengenai anggaran yang sedang berjalan pada Direktorat Jendral Badan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Departemen Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Direktorat Pembinaan Peradilan Agama Departemen Agama, Peradilan Tinggi, Peradilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara, Peradilan Tinggi Agama / Mahkamah Syariah, Peradilan Negeri, Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, Peradilan Agama / Mahkamah Syariah beralih dalam satu atap di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung.
Pada tanggal 1 Maret Tahun 2004 Menteri Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia telah menyerahkan organisasi, administrasi dan finansial dalam Iingkungan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara kepada Ketua Mahkamah Agung, dan pada tanggal 30 Juni 2004 Menteri Agama juga telah menyerahkan organisasi, administrasi dan finansial Lingkungan Peradilan Agama pada Ketua Mahkamah Agung.
Selanjutnya karena berbagai kendala teknis, sedikit tertunda dari tanggal 30 Juni 2004 yang ditetapkan dalam UU, pada tanggal 1 September 2004 Panglima ABRI juga telah menyerahkan organisasi, administrasi dan finansial Iingkungan Peradilan Militer kepada Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI, dan sesuai dengan Pasal 43 UU. No. 4 Tahun 2004 tentang kekuasaan kehakiman, sejak dialihkannya organisasi, administrasi dan finansial sebagaimana dimaksud oleh Pasal 42 Ayat 1 maka :
Berdasarkan Pasal 44 UU. No. 4 Tahun 2004 tentang Kekuasaan kehakiman, sejak dialihkannya organisasi, administrasi dan finansial sebagaimana dimaksud oleh Pasal 42 Ayat (2) maka :
Berdasarkan Pasal 45 UU. No. 4 Tahun 2004 tentang Kekuasaan kehakiman, sejak dialihkannya organisasi, administrasi dan finansial sebagaimana dimaksud oleh Pasal 42 Ayat (3), maka:
© 2023 Pengadilan Militer Tinggi II Jakarta
English