Strengthening JAMPIDMIL’s Authority in Handling Joint Civilian–Military Criminal Cases

This article examines the statutory and institutional scope of the Deputy Attorney General for Military Criminal Affairs (JAMPIDMIL) in joint civilian–military criminal cases (perkara koneksitas), with particular attention to Attorney General Guideline No. 2 of 2025 and its relationship to Indonesia's 2025 Criminal Procedure Code. Using normative juridical analysis through statutory and conceptual approaches, the study compares prosecutorial authority, forum determination, and coordination across civilian and military justice institutions. The analysis identifies three normative concerns: optional military participation in some preliminary activities, divided central–regional accountability, and potentially prolonged coordination between prosecutors and military authorities. It also distinguishes the authority established in binding legislation from procedures established in an internal prosecutorial guideline. The TWP-AD corruption case is used solely as a pre-guideline illustration of connectivity proceedings, not as evidence of the 2025 guideline's effectiveness. The study argues that clearer allocation of procedural responsibility, written coordination requirements, and alignment with the new Criminal Procedure Code could improve legal certainty without displacing powers reserved by statute. These conclusions concern normative regulatory design rather than empirically measured implementation outcomes.