A single judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Suparna, partially granted a pre-trial motion concerning the investigation into the acid attack case against Andrie Yunus on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. This pivotal ruling directs the Directorate of General Criminal Investigation of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya) to continue its probe into police report number LP/A/222/III/2026/Satreskrim/Restro Jakpus/Polda Metro Jaya.
In his deliberation, Judge Suparna emphasized that Polda Metro Jaya had not yet issued a notification of investigation termination (SP3) for the aforementioned police report. This absence of an SP3 formed a crucial basis for the court’s decision, underscoring the ongoing nature of the investigation despite perceptions to the contrary.
The judge also pointed to a significant “miscommunication among the respondent institutions” as a key factor contributing to the need for clarification. On one hand, investigators maintained that the investigation was still active and an SP3 had not been issued. However, conflicting statements emerged from Polda Metro Jaya’s leadership during a hearing with the House of Representatives’ Legal Commission, and from the Head of Public Relations during a press conference on April 1, 2016. These statements indicated that the case files and evidence had been transferred to the Indonesian Military Police Center (Puspom TNI), suggesting that police authority had concluded.
The judge noted that these contradictory statements from two high-ranking Polda Metro Jaya officials were widely covered by print and electronic media, causing considerable confusion among the public, especially the victim. Many were led to believe that with the transfer of evidence to Puspom TNI, the police’s responsibilities had ceased. This widespread misunderstanding highlighted the need for judicial intervention to ensure clarity and continuity in the legal process.
Based on the evidence and facts presented during the trial, the court observed that the police had undertaken limited follow-up actions in the investigation. Polda Metro Jaya had only examined one witness, Fitri Ambar Sari, and sent a progress report to Andrie Yunus. Despite these minimal actions, Judge Suparna clarified that such a situation did not automatically qualify as an “undue delay” in the investigation, explaining that the handling of different cases inherently varies in character, nature, and complexity.
Further bolstering the court’s decision was the testimony of Ravio Patra, who was assigned by the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta), the Commission for Disappeared Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS), and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI). Ravio Patra presented an analysis of the acid attack event, indicating that based on 34 CCTV points, at least 16 individuals, or certainly more than 4, were allegedly involved in the incident. Additionally, the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) had urged the police to thoroughly continue the investigation into the acid attack on Andrie Yunus, specifically to identify other perpetrators, including civilians.
While the judge did not concur with the petitioner’s claim of “undue delay” on the part of the police, he firmly asserted that for the sake of law, justice, and the protection of human rights, particularly for the victim, the Directorate of General Criminal Investigation of Polda Metro Jaya must pursue the legal process to its full conclusion, ensuring legal certainty. Consequently, item 6 of the petitioner’s request, which sought a court order for the respondent to continue the legal process for police report number LP/A/222/III/2026/Satreskrim/Restro Jakpus/Polda Metro Jaya dated March 13, 2026, was deemed meritorious and granted.
In light of these considerations, Andrie Yunus’s pre-trial motion was partially granted, while other requests were denied. This ruling underscores a critical step towards clarifying institutional responsibilities and ensuring thoroughness in high-profile criminal investigations, particularly those involving severe acts of violence.
Summary
The South Jakarta District Court has partially granted a pre-trial motion regarding the acid attack investigation of Andrie Yunus, mandating that the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya) continue their probe. Judge Suparna ruled that since no formal termination of investigation (SP3) was issued, the case remains legally active. This decision serves to resolve public confusion caused by contradictory statements from police officials regarding the potential transfer of authority to military investigators.
Although the court rejected claims of “undue delay,” it emphasized that the police must proceed with the investigation to ensure legal certainty and justice for the victim. The ruling followed expert testimony and evidence, including CCTV analysis, suggesting multiple perpetrators were involved in the attack. Consequently, the court ordered the police to fulfill their responsibility by rigorously pursuing the case to its conclusion.