Rekonstruksi Yurisdiksi Perkara Koneksitas Pasca Berlakunya Pasal 170 UU No. 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kuhap: Pergeseran Kewenangan dari Eksekutif ke Mahkamah Agung

Abstract

Connectivity cases are an important issue in Indonesia’s criminal justice system because they involve two jurisdictions: general courts and military courts. For more than four decades, these cases were regulated under Articles 89–94 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code. The previous mechanism adopted an executive determination model, in which jurisdictional disputes were resolved by the executive branch, raising concerns about judicial independence as guaranteed by Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code introduced a fundamental change. Article 170(1) establishes general courts as the primary forum for connectivity cases, while military courts have jurisdiction when the primary harm concerns military interests. Articles 171 and 172 provide for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes by the Supreme Court within 14 working days. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, historical, and case approaches. The findings reveal a reconstruction of connectivity jurisdiction, shifting from executive dominance toward stronger judicial authority. This change strengthens the principles of equality before the law, judicial independence, and an integrated criminal justice system. However, uncertainties remain regarding the criteria for determining harm to military interests and the inadequacy of regulations governing connectivity judges. Therefore, Supreme Court regulations and a modernized framework for connectivity judges are necessary to ensure legal certainty and consistency in jurisdictional determinations.