Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih chairing the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia, Monday (10/21/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Monday, November 21, 2022 | 15:04 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia was held the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, November 21, 2022. The petition No. 104/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Sandi Ebenezer Situngkir, an advocate.

The hearing had been scheduled to examine the revised petition, but the Petitioner was absent and had not submitted the revised petition. This fact was revealed when panel chair Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked about the Petitioner’s attendance.

“Today’s hearing for petition No. 104/PUU-XX/2022 is [to examine] the revisions to the petition. I’m calling out to the Petitioner once again, is he present? I’d like to call once again, is the Petitioner, Mr. Sandi Ebenezer Situngkir present? For the third time, is the Petitioner, Mr. Sandi Ebenezer Situngkir present for case No. 104/PUU-XX/2022? The Petitioner is not in attendance and has not submitted the revised petition,” Justice Enny said.

Because the Petitioner was absent and had been summoned properly, she added, and because the revised petition was not submitted without any explanation, the justice panel would report this to the justice deliberation meeting (RPH).

Also read: Lack of Checks and Balances in State Police Questioned

The Petitioner is challenging Article 15 paragraph (2) letter k, Article 16 paragraph (1) letter l, Article 18 paragraph (1), Article 38 paragraph (2), and Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Police Law. At the preliminary hearing, he argued that those articles did not have clear statement of purpose and legal certainty, which is a prerequisite set by the Lawmaking Law. “There are provisions in Articles 15, 16, and 18 [of the Police Law] that say that members of the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia may carry out other actions based on their own interpretation,” he said.

The Petitioner believes the Police’s authority in the law is not limited and may be interpreted arbitrarily.

“The law grants the Police duties, functions, and authorities but without clear limits, when the law should be limiting and the objective and legal certainty must be clear,” he said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

He also questioned the National Police Commission’s (Kompolnas) authority as it only provides recommendations and opinions to the president. Therefore, he argued, there is no checks and balances function in the Police Law.

“Although there is an internal supervisory function, in the Police Law, the Kompolnas does not have a function, whether it is a supervisory agency in the Police or not. The law only stipulates that it has an authority to provide recommendations and opinions to the president in relation to the police chief candidates and the Police budget. Therefore, the Petitioner requests that the Court make a new norm on the Police’s checks and balances, which is imperative for the Police’s performance,” he explained.

He also alleged that he had suffered constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 39 and the elucidation to Article 39 paragraph (2) in conjunction with paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002, which bars him from becoming a commissioner in the Kompolnas. The Kompolnas membership comprises three ministerial-level government officials: Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs; Minister of Law and Human Rights; and Minister of Home Affairs. This, he argued, violates the checks-and-balances function, where both the Police Chief and the ministers are appointed by the president and thus cannot supervise the Police.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/21/2022 15:54 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---