<![CDATA[The acid attack against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus raises a jurisdictional problem concerning whether active soldiers who commit ordinary crimes should be tried by a military or general court. This article examines the legality of the jurisdiction of Military Court II-08 Jakarta in Decision Number 70-K/PM II-08/AL/IV/2026 and evaluates the quality of the adjudication through legal certainty, procedural justice, transparency, victim protection, and judicial accountability. The study employs normative juridical research using statute, conceptual, and case approaches. The primary legal materials consist of the 1945 Constitution, the Military Courts Law, the TNI Law as amended in 2025, the national Criminal Code, the new Criminal Procedure Code, and the court decision. The analysis applies a two-layer test: first, the legality of the forum based on absolute and relative jurisdiction, the relationship between the Military Courts Law and the TNI Law, and the concept of connection between jurisdictions; second, the quality of adjudication reflected in the reasoning and procedural record of the judgment. The findings show that, under the ius constitutum applicable to the case, the military court still had a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction because the defendants were active soldiers when the offence was committed. At the same time, the 2025 TNI amendment expresses an ius constituendum direction toward general-court jurisdiction for ordinary crimes. The judgment records formal safeguards of due process and procedural accountability, while the available record is more limited for assessing substantive transparency and the adequacy of victim protection. Harmonisation of the military justice framework is therefore necessary to clarify the boundary between military and general jurisdiction.]]>
