Legal Implications of Dual Jurisdiction in Connectivity Cases: a Study of the Major Point of Loss of Criminal Acts from the Perspective of Legal Certainty

This study examines regulatory weaknesses in Chapter XI of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding connexity cases, analyses the juridical implications of judicial dualism on legal certainty, and proposes legal reforms to enhance certainty in criminal procedure. Using Gustav Radbruch’s theory of legal certainty, the theory of connexity, and the theory of civil supremacy, the research highlights the need for clear rules and consistent law enforcement. Employing a normative legal method with a juridical-analytical approach, the study reviews relevant legislation (Criminal Procedure Code, Attorney General’s Act, Military Justice Act) and case studies (TWP-AD and Satellite Procurement Project) using qualitative descriptive analysis. Findings reveal that the ambiguous definitions of "public interest" and "military interest" in Chapter XI of the Criminal Procedure Code contribute to judicial dualism in connexity cases. The study underscores the need to reinforce coordination through the Military Prosecutor for Military Criminal Matters (Jampidmil), whose role is currently underrepresented in the legal framework. Reform is necessary to establish clearer parameters for determining jurisdictional emphasis and integrating Jampidmil into the criminal procedural system. This research has significant implications, advocating for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to eliminate judicial dualism, strengthen Jampidmil’s role as a technical coordinator, and enhance legal certainty within the judicial system. By focusing on the juridical impact of judicial dualism and offering concrete solutions for reform, this study contributes to the development of Indonesia’s criminal procedural law with an original and practical approach.